Whats with the VR6?

Zalight · 08-04-2004, 05:11 AM

I've heard often heard people calling the VR6 "revolutionary" or that " it's one of the most original piston engines ever made beside the w8" and all sorts of other praise for it. Whats so signifigant and cool about it? I was under the impression that it was like most other V6 engines, but apparently i was wrong...

heebee · 08-04-2004, 10:07 AM

The VR6 is an OK engine, but it's not radical really. It's just a very narrow angle V6. Unfortunately, that means it can overheat in the middle of the engine, but only if you're being silly, or tuning the life out of it.

The people who say it is a 'revolutionary' engine are in marketing: they're the same people that will tell you that Volkswagens are really reliable, and that Golfs aren't really dull to look at. Unfortunately, people tend to believe their lies.

Inygknok · 08-04-2004, 02:51 PM

to know just why the VR6 engine is so praised, u need to know its exact advantages and genius design. everyone thinks its easy to make a narrow angle V6, but its not. just imagine a V6 engine with the cylinders parted by 15 degrees. the whole situation is, they will still share the same cylinder block and head, instead of using 2, like an inline 6. they also use a 7 main bearing crankshaft like an inline 6. their real advantage comes to their compact size. they are only a bit larger than inline 4 engines, and ATLEAST half as wide as a V6. so for a 6 piston engine, this is extremely compact. also, the newer generation VR6, which came out in july of '99 (i believe), its new 24 valve DOHC model was first finally assembled and set into production. because of the pistons being parted by a 15 degree angle, but still shared the same cylinder block and head, u can imagine just how damn hard it was to make that engine into a 24 valve DOHC design (try to make the intake valves be controlled by one camshaft and the exhaust by another and be efficient in weight, friction, and performance).

the W8 really isnt much of a revolutionary engine, mainly cuz its not so well balanced out at all. the W12 is just 2 VR6's mated together side by side with a certain angle between them (i think it was 60-90), the w16 was 2 VR8 engines (still not really into production, but it's being currently produced for next year), and the W18 is just some psycho idea Audi used to have which was pretty stupid. it consisted of 3 inline-6 engines lined up so that one was in the center, one to the right, and one to the left. so there were double V banks, since each inline-6 engine had a V bank next to it, actually, the middle one had 2 next to it, the left and right ones. it was larger than a V12, less efficient than a V12, heavier than a V12, hella more expensive than a V12, so on so on. so the idea was discarded.

Zalight · 08-04-2004, 09:28 PM

Damn... Thanks for all the info!

I never knew any of that about most of those engines, I've never looked much into Volkswagen.

Hey, Ignyknok, it says your from Puerto Rico under location. But your english is excellent. Better then some people that have been speaking it all their life. Did you move to PR or born there or what?

thunderbird1100 · 08-04-2004, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zalight

I've heard often heard people calling the VR6 "revolutionary" or that " it's one of the most original piston engines ever made beside the w8" and all sorts of other praise for it. Whats so signifigant and cool about it? I was under the impression that it was like most other V6 engines, but apparently i was wrong...

The Vr6 isn't really anything special in my mind. It's power output is best left to being 'qujite pathetic'. 200hp from 2.8L DOHC v6?

Honda's K24 in the TSX - 2.4L DOHC 16v - 200hp
Honda's J30 in the Accord - 3.0L SOHC 24v - 240hp

and just for the good 'ole icing on the cake...

Honda's J32 in the TL - 3.2L SOHC 24v - 270hp

Inygknok · 08-07-2004, 02:31 PM

nah, i was born here. ive just spoken english from an early age, and i really dont like spanish anyhow. i just have to speak spanish cuz, duhh, i live in PR.

Lukaz · 08-07-2004, 02:34 PM

The VR6 for what it is isnt very impressive at all. The 3.2 litre R32 golf is far better

Zalight · 08-08-2004, 12:07 AM

Yeah my local dealership was selling one. I tried to convince them to let me test drive it, but they don't let you drive it until all the paperwork to buy the car is actually signed.

And I could be wrong but doesn't the R32 have a VR6 in it?

Inygknok · 08-08-2004, 05:59 AM

yea, that r32 has a souped up version of the VR6 engine. larger bore and stroke, and much higher compression. i think the compression was around 11.6 if im not mistaken.

thunderbird1100 · 08-09-2004, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lukaz

The VR6 for what it is isnt very impressive at all. The 3.2 litre R32 golf is far better

It only has 240hp...i think that's pathetic for a high compression performance DOHC 3.2 engine... I'll say this again....

Honda's SOHC 24v 3.0L = 240hp... and thier 3.2 SOHC 24v = 270hp....IN FAMILY SEDANS!! Not to mention the puny 2.0L 1g S2000 engine...240hp.

heebee · 08-09-2004, 04:11 PM

Having driven a range of Hondas, I can say that the power figures on paper are very far from the whole story.

The Honda engines just don't have any torque further down the rev range. You have to thrash them to go anywhere. A V6, with a fairly flat torque curve, is going to be a lot more relaxed.

I've really enjoyed driving a few quick Hondas (Civic VTi, Civic Type R, S2000, Accord 2.2 somethingorother) because they rev so well, but I wouldn't want to own one: I just don't want to have to rev to 8,000 rpm all the time to get anywhere.

Back to Golfs: the major disadvantage with the R32 is its horrible 4wd system. There's just no feel to it at all.

thunderbird1100 · 08-11-2004, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by heebee

Having driven a range of Hondas, I can say that the power figures on paper are very far from the whole story.

The Honda engines just don't have any torque further down the rev range. You have to thrash them to go anywhere. A V6, with a fairly flat torque curve, is going to be a lot more relaxed.

I've really enjoyed driving a few quick Hondas (Civic VTi, Civic Type R, S2000, Accord 2.2 somethingorother) because they rev so well, but I wouldn't want to own one: I just don't want to have to rev to 8,000 rpm all the time to get anywhere.

Back to Golfs: the major disadvantage with the R32 is its horrible 4wd system. There's just no feel to it at all.

Maybe you haven't heard of Honda's i-Vtec system. It solves the low-end problem. The I-4 Accord and RSX and Civic Si all employ this now. I wouldn't go as far to say you have to thrash the throttle thoguh to get from point A. to point B. though.....In civics, probably, but I'm only a fan of the bigger engined hondas...i-Vtec engines have very nice flat torque curves (whole point of i-Vtec)...the 2.0 K20 and 2.4 K24 are VERY torquey engines for their size...Honda also likes to under-rated their engines horribly now....The Accord's 3.0 is rated at 240hp but hit nearly 210fwhp sometimes...about the same for the TL except more around 230fwhp...the new 2.2 S2000 is still only rated at 240hp but makes nearly 215-220rwhp (the old 2.0 only made 200rwhp and they just kept the rating the same due to the 2.0 not living up to crank hp specs).

heebee · 08-11-2004, 09:37 AM

I only called it as I found it. Perhaps Honda uses different engines in the USA, but in Europe, all the VTEC Hondas I've driven have been peaky, with poor low-rev torque.

For similar money to a Civic Type R, you can get a Seat Leon Cupra R, which absolutely blows the Civic into the weeds on a cross-country drive.

Zalight · 08-11-2004, 10:12 AM

I got screwed, I decided to buy the VR6 gti, went to the dealership, signed everything and was almost out the door when suddenly they turned me down because I dont have enough credit. They put me through the paces and had me staring at paperwork for two hours before they turned me down.

I proceeded to yell at the manager for 15 minutes about all this and how they got my hopes of getting a new car up, and how I thought I would be leaving in my brand new GTI but instead had to get into a hunk of crap again blah blah blah. I yelled so much in fact that in order to calm me down he gave me 50 bucks cash for all the trouble.

I was much happier when I got into my CRX with 50 more dollars and left.

ChrisV · 08-11-2004, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thunderbird1100

The Vr6 isn't really anything special in my mind. It's power output is best left to being 'qujite pathetic'. 200hp from 2.8L DOHC v6?

Honda's K24 in the TSX - 2.4L DOHC 16v - 200hp
Honda's J30 in the Accord - 3.0L SOHC 24v - 240hp

and just for the good 'ole icing on the cake...

Honda's J32 in the TL - 3.2L SOHC 24v - 270hp

*sigh* so opinionated for such a young person...

The VR6 is special because it's a V6 that BOLTS into the place of a 4 cyl in the VW. While the HP figures are "nothing special" to you, the overall torque curve, flexibility, and driveability certainly should be. Remember, hp is only a derived number, it's torque that does the work. the 200 hp VR6 has 195 lb ft of torque at a very daily driveable 3200 rpm. The TSX you mention has 200 hp, but only 166 lb ft of torque, and it comes in over a thousand rpm higher! Yes, the Accord has 240 hp and 212 lb ft of torque (but that torque is at 5500 rpm! Not much in the way of low end, daily driver ability!), but it does it from more displacement, and a physically much larger and heavier engine (again, the point of the VR6 is to get nearly 3 liters of V6 ability in the space normally reserved for a 4 cyl engine).

Sorry that you can't really figure that out.