C&D: Mazdaspeed 3 vs. Volkswagen GTI

[NomisR]

For the record, I've never read a review of the MkV R32 where the reviewer didn't state that he'd rather have a GTI. 

if that's the case.. well, I still don't like how their brakes and accelerators work so I'll still take a MS3. 

Even though I do like the interior of the VW.

[MX793]

Oopsie. The US version is governed to that speed. The European version can go faster. Likely would take all day, though.


Ed says he's gotten his SVT that fast, and it's rated for similar output numbers.

An SVT Contour won't go that fast either.  Speedometers lie.  Unless that speed was confirmed via stopwatch or radar, I wouldn't trust its accuracy.

[2o6]

An SVT Contour won't go that fast either.  Speedometers lie.  Unless that speed was confirmed via stopwatch or radar, I wouldn't trust its accuracy.

So, you believe that an R32 can go 160?

[Raza]

My Passat had no problem charging to 130 with plenty of revs left in the motor.  I didn't doubt 150 out of that car, and I don't doubt it out of the more powerful GTI. 

[2o6]

I mean, these are German cars. They're made for sustaining high speeds on the autobahn.

[565]

What about the Golf R?

Supposedly the replacement to the R32.  With the turbo 4 instead of the 6.  Bound for America, should make everyone happy.  Probably cost like a 1 series though.

http://jalopnik.com/5360911/2010-volkswagen-golf-r-the-scirocco-r-for-america

[MX793]

I mean, these are German cars. They're made for sustaining high speeds on the autobahn.

Doesn't mean they can defy the laws of physics.

[MX793]

My Passat had no problem charging to 130 with plenty of revs left in the motor.  I didn't doubt 150 out of that car, and I don't doubt it out of the more powerful GTI. 

Just because the revs support going faster doesn't mean the motor will pull it.  1.8T Passat probably taps out at around 135 (real speed, German speedometers are some of the most "optimistic" going).

Although in poking around a bit, I found a source claiming a drag limited top speed of 149 for a GTI.  I'm honestly a bit surprised since the hatchback isn't the best aerodynamic shape and 210 hp isn't that much power.

[2o6]

Well, what do you think is a realistic top speed?

Do you think a Sonata can actually go 147MPH?

[565]

Well, what do you think is a realistic top speed?

Do you think a Sonata can actually go 147MPH?

Yes C&D tested a Sonata V6 at 146mph.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/08q2/2009_hyundai_sonata_se_v6-short_take_road_test

Normal family cars can do some impressive speeds.

Even a 175hp Sonata can do at least 134mph before it runs into a limiter.

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/21c755076d1d7c05797543a4472d3500.pdf

A 168hp slush box Accord will do 130 before running into a limiter.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/07q1/2007_honda_accord_vs._nissan_altima_kia_optima_saturn_aura_toyota_camry_chrysler_sebring-comparison_tests

[the Teuton]

I think my car could hit 125 mph if I had the fortitude to take a 14-year-old car with 104k miles on it that fast.

[BimmerM3]

I think my car could hit 125 mph if I had the fortitude to take a 14-year-old car with 104k miles on it that fast.

With your car, I'd be worried about stability more than anything else. A 2400lb plasticar with skinny little tires doesn't sound like it would inspire much confidence north of 90mph or so.

I've gotten the Accord up to an indicated 120 with at least a little bit of room to go. The speedometer was probably 6-7mph faster than real speeds at that point though. I might have to try it with a GPS one of these days to get a more accurate speed reading.

[the Teuton]

With your car, I'd be worried about stability more than anything else. A 2400lb plasticar with skinny little tires doesn't sound like it would inspire much confidence north of 90mph or so.

I've gotten the Accord up to an indicated 120 with at least a little bit of room to go. The speedometer was probably 6-7mph faster than real speeds at that point though. I might have to try it with a GPS one of these days to get a more accurate speed reading.

Yeah, it would scare the shit out of me. I had the Impreza up to 92, so I figure I'll get the nerve to break 100 with the PlastiCar eventually.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Yeah, it would scare the shit out of me. I had the Impreza up to 92, so I figure I'll get the nerve to break 100 with the PlastiCar eventually.

This, you must do.

[AltinD]

My 3.2L VR6 Passat with 250 HP, AWD and DSG gearbox is rated by the factory with a max speed of 248 kph (154 MPH)

[Raza]

Just because the revs support going faster doesn't mean the motor will pull it.  1.8T Passat probably taps out at around 135 (real speed, German speedometers are some of the most "optimistic" going).

Although in poking around a bit, I found a source claiming a drag limited top speed of 149 for a GTI.  I'm honestly a bit surprised since the hatchback isn't the best aerodynamic shape and 210 hp isn't that much power.

Where will you see a dropoff in speedometer accuracy?  Comparing against radar signs, my Passat was optimistic up to 3mph at 80, and my Jetta is spot on at 80. 

[BimmerM3]

Where will you see a dropoff in speedometer accuracy?  Comparing against radar signs, my Passat was optimistic up to 3mph at 80, and my Jetta is spot on at 80. 

You can probably use the GPS on your iPhone to get an accurate speed reading, assuming you're on level ground.

[S204STi]

There is a stretch of road somewhere, I think in ID, where they actually have a speedo calibration zone.  Two specially marked sign posts are exactly a mile apart, and they state on the signs prior to these that it should take XXX time to pass between them at XXmph. (I forget exactly what it was).

[93JC]

Here the AMA (Alberta Motor Association) has signs on most primary and secondary highways named "odometer test zones". The first sign says "Test zone begins 1 km ahead", the second "Test zone begins", the third "1 km", the fourth "2 km" and so on until you get to five kilometres and it ends. You can use these to ensure your odometer is calibrated and by extension your speedometer. You know that if your odometer says 4.9 km at the end of the test zone your speedo is obviously a little low, and if it's 5.1 km it's a little high. Hypothetically you could measure the time with a stopwatch to get a more accurate reading of your speed.


When I was in Montana last month I was surprised I didn't encounter something similar by AAA.

[MrH]

You can probably use the GPS on your iPhone to get an accurate speed reading, assuming you're on level ground.

Doesn't even need to be level ground.  GPS triangulates with three satellites to get your position.

[Minpin]

Doesn't even need to be level ground.  GPS triangulates with three satellites to get your position.

If you want to feel really smart, tell me how many GPS satellites there are...without looking it up. 

[Tave]

Where will you see a dropoff in speedometer accuracy?  Comparing against radar signs, my Passat was optimistic up to 3mph at 80, and my Jetta is spot on at 80. 

The faster your speed the larger your error. Moreover speedometers are calibrated with typical speeds in mind, so there isn't a whole lot of incentive to guarantee any sort of accuracy in the triple digits (on a mainstreamer).

Or so I've been told.

[SVT_Power]

According to my garmin, I'm off by approx 3 mph at around 85 mph. When I'm doing an indicated 149, gps says I'm doing 143. Which is just about the top speed most people see with radar guns. But at like 60 and lower, speedo's pretty much dead on.

[BimmerM3]

Doesn't even need to be level ground.  GPS triangulates with three satellites to get your position.

I mean, unless the road was significantly sloped, it wouldn't make much of a difference, but wouldn't GPS just measure location change assuming the Earth is flat?

For example, say you're driving up edge C. Wouldn't the GPS just be able to see change of position on edge B?

[MrH]

I mean, unless the road was significantly sloped, it wouldn't make much of a difference, but wouldn't GPS just measure location change assuming the Earth is flat?

For example, say you're driving up edge C. Wouldn't the GPS just be able to see change of position on edge B?

The easiest way to imagine it is to picture three satellites floating in space.  All any of the satellites can do is tell you how far your car is from that specific satellite.  So imagine satellite 1 tells you your car is 10.5 miles away from it.  That means there's a sphere with radius of 10.5 miles around that satellite that your car can technically be on.  Imagine doing that with the other two satellites.  There will be one spot in space where all 3 spheres intersect.

GPS can tell you altitude and stuff too.  It does that through triangulation.  It's much easier to find the intersection of these three spheres in space than it is to try and map your coordinate onto the surface of the earth with only 2 satellites.

[BimmerM3]

The easiest way to imagine it is to picture three satellites floating in space.  All any of the satellites can do is tell you how far your car is from that specific satellite.  So imagine satellite 1 tells you your car is 10.5 miles away from it.  That means there's a sphere with radius of 10.5 miles around that satellite that your car can technically be on.  Imagine doing that with the other two satellites.  There will be one spot in space where all 3 spheres intersect.

GPS can tell you altitude and stuff too.  It does that through triangulation.  It's much easier to find the intersection of these three spheres in space than it is to try and map your coordinate onto the surface of the earth with only 2 satellites.

Ah, right. Okay then.

I do have to wonder if the software actually calculates your velocity based on your 2D or 3D coordinates.

[93JC]

3D. GPS does everything in 3D. Sometimes the altitude is a little off though, because Earth is not a perfect ellipsoid.

[MX793]

For the record, I've never read a review of the MkV R32 where the reviewer didn't state that he'd rather have a GTI. 

While every review I've read has said the R32 is superior to the regular GTI, I have read reviews where reviewers have said that it's not so much better as to justify spending $10K more for it over the regular GTI.

[r0tor]

The faster your speed the larger your error. Moreover speedometers are calibrated with typical speeds in mind, so there isn't a whole lot of incentive to guarantee any sort of accuracy in the triple digits (on a mainstreamer).

Or so I've been told.

its partly because the dashboard gauge assumes the speedometer is perfectly linear which it isn't and also tire wear can throw things off a couple percent

[Cookie Monster]

The faster your speed the larger your error. Moreover speedometers are calibrated with typical speeds in mind, so there isn't a whole lot of incentive to guarantee any sort of accuracy in the triple digits (on a mainstreamer).

Or so I've been told.

Is the speedometer error caused by tire expansion at higher speeds?