Which is faster?

Re: Which is faster? (RIPkevsGTI)

that would be close for a while. probably about the same. if it was a roll the SLC would romp on it

Re: Which is faster? (Spec3VR6)

86 gti could probably take it in some situations, don't get setup. i've seen 2.0 16V n/a's put down 163whp..

Re: Which is faster? (RIPkevsGTI)

Keep in mind that the Corrado is HEAVY.
My 2.0 16V Corrado is much slower than my 1.8 16V Golf, both stock. The difference is +7 bhp and +500 lb. Even with a VR6, +49 bhp and +600lb, it's still close: do the math. A built 16V A2 Golf has a better power to weight ratio.
F=ma
Until aero drag takes over the Golf has the advantage.
For the swots:
A2 16V PL engine, euro spec: 129 bhp 2200 lb: 117 bhp/tonne [that's the British standard]
C0rrado SLC: 178 bhp, 2800lb: 127 bhp/tonne
To equal the power to weight ratio of a Corrado SLC, the Golf needs 139.7 bhp. That's almost exactly the power of a KR engine (1.8 non-cat) Golf 16V. Any decent build should exceed that comfortably.

Re: Which is faster? (Dubai Vol)

I can tell you w well done up 16v will beat a stock Corrado with out any problem. A corrado Vr6 is 178 hp with a 15% lost to the whells, that's a 26.7 hp loss which will be 152/153 whp. If you take a 163 whp 16v you should not have to much to worry about. Look at weight to power ratio.

Re: Which is faster? (onetufvw)

First off, it takes a crapload of work to make close to 180whp on an N/A 16V. The only one I know of near me is running a very well built block/head @ 2.1L, TEC3 management, Badger 5 intake system (4 individual TB's), etc, and makes under 180 to the wheels.
It's also easy to look at power alone but forget about gearing!
Anywho...I think it depends on the car/driver. I wouldn't make any bets until I've ridden in both cars. While a massaged 16v is nothing to sneeze at, there aren't many N/A A2's I know of that can hand an SLC it's a$$. Especially at speed.