P
Phil_G
Guest
My challenge stands: 84PS... underpowered for a conversion?
Last edited by a moderator:
Vw never advertised that this van can go faster than that one....more this van is better suited to a local Electrican or this van suits a builder both require different things and load/weight requirements...hence more torque and stopping power not how fast
it’s us that choose to convert and play around with what was essentially a work vehicle
Again when comparing to cars..the bigger engine cars where seen as touring vehicle/motorway sluggers not driving to the shops once a week ..so you’d buy the correct vehicle accordingly......more now it’s status symbols....look what I’ve got...and wonder way the engine plays up
Speed limits are there for a reason ....buts it’s the journey you travel and how you get there that counts....Enjoy all your vans
it’s us that choose to convert and play around with what was essentially a work vehicle
Again when comparing to cars..the bigger engine cars where seen as touring vehicle/motorway sluggers not driving to the shops once a week ..so you’d buy the correct vehicle accordingly......more now it’s status symbols....look what I’ve got...and wonder way the engine plays up
Speed limits are there for a reason ....buts it’s the journey you travel and how you get there that counts....Enjoy all your vans
Brilliant!
I will merely say this. Being able to drop a gear, plant the right foot, and effortlessly haul past the slow movers on the run up the Rest and Be Thankful justifies the decision to buy the 204. Every single time! In fact, it's often not necessary to even change down for a fast, safe, overtake. The thing just pulls. And before the "it's a campervan, enjoy the journey" brigade get triggered, the main purpose of our wagon is to get us to where our real journey actually starts.
On the startline at Santa Pod?
All snarky replies apart I think the extra 200 Nm of torque is what makes the 204 appear so much more powerful when compared to the 102hp version but just like a 500hp Scania tractor unit that greater oomph doesn't actually translate to a 7 second quarter mile time or being able to wee higher up the wall.
All snarky replies apart I think the extra 200 Nm of torque is what makes the 204 appear so much more powerful when compared to the 102hp version but just like a 500hp Scania tractor unit that greater oomph doesn't actually translate to a 7 second quarter mile time or being able to wee higher up the wall.
I'm unsure as to where you're getting the idea that all the replies are "snarky" - the fact remains that a 102 is fine in certain applications, and those of us who like to move on a bit are noting that the 150 or 204 is better. And in truth, I've yet to find anyone regretting getting the 204, all that lovely power (and torque) - still, I suppose only those of us who can actually wee higher up the wall are capable of handling such awesome, mind bending performance.
No, no interest in Santa Pod for journey start - it's usually some remote West Highland loch and a few days kayaking. As noted by others, you can plod up the A9 and be unable to overtake, or you can have a vehicle in which it's possible to get a safe and efficient overtake. Anyway, it was you who resurrected the thread - what were you expecting? You also noted you were in a bolshy mood at the time.
No, no interest in Santa Pod for journey start - it's usually some remote West Highland loch and a few days kayaking. As noted by others, you can plod up the A9 and be unable to overtake, or you can have a vehicle in which it's possible to get a safe and efficient overtake. Anyway, it was you who resurrected the thread - what were you expecting? You also noted you were in a bolshy mood at the time.
Last edited:
Not another bod who passes out when all that blood gets diverted then?
These days thanks to a failing memory and eyesight 102 hp and a 5 speed box are ideal for the journey to my next hard standing and ehu, finding the toilet block in the dark at stupid o'clock is adventure enough.
These days thanks to a failing memory and eyesight 102 hp and a 5 speed box are ideal for the journey to my next hard standing and ehu, finding the toilet block in the dark at stupid o'clock is adventure enough.
And it will still be in 6th at 70 up some of the steeper hills on our motorway network.
On the startline at Santa Pod?
All snarky replies apart I think the extra 200 Nm of torque is what makes the 204 appear so much more powerful when compared to the 102hp version but just like a 500hp Scania tractor unit that greater oomph doesn't actually translate to a 7 second quarter mile time or being able to wee higher up the wall.
How us 204 drivers wee, as we have the Power.
Ah that slight whiff of heroism at being able to wrestle such powerful man made force but now I consider, that same whiff, could it be wee your lordship?
My replies were definitely snarky, as you noted I ressurrected the thread for a good old bit of to and fro on the forum, by the way are you here for the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?
Ah that slight whiff of heroism at being able to wrestle such powerful man made force but now I consider, that same whiff, could it be wee your lordship?
Remember who's admitting to having to go for a wee in the middle of the night - - - and has the failing eyesight and memory! Bladder control dear boy - it's an age thing, I hear.
Oh, I've got all evening. I got to where I wanted to go today while you were still stuck behind that tractor on the A84. I was the one passing you out, having come from 3 cars (and a caravan) behind you and the tractor. I suppose the grey blur was obscured by the dazzle from the red infill in the TDI logo
P
Phil_G
Guest
Pfft. My bike has more
Yes, this always astonishes me - that a m/cycle can have more oomph than a 3 ton van. I had a K100RT back in the day - what was that? 90? There was something on one of car sites a while back where the original and current incarnations of some Alpha were being compared. It amuses me that we now have diesel vans with twice the output of what had been a bit of a hot machine in it's day.
Yes - it strikes me that the standard Sierra Cosworth had 175 Bhp and was considered very powerful, now we see more than that in everyday vehicles. Of course vehicles today are much heavier so it doesn't translate into performance. The Mk1 VW Golf could tip the scales at less than 800Kg, the current model Golf has a minimum kerb weight of 1302Kg! No wonder it needs a bit of extra oomph, it's carrying half a tonne more weight.
Damn you 204’s, I’ve ‘only’ got 199.....
As are humility, irony and self deprecation, lighten up blood.
I had intended to get a bit of friendly willy waving going here on the forum but sadly that now seems to have hit a bit of a bump in the road. See the idea here is that I give away some back handed weaknesses to my viewpoint with the idea of leaving a bit of room for the odd witty counter attack and certain amount of reality but this whole premise stumbles if the thread is taken at face value and tales of daring and toxic masculinity replace witty replies.
I did look up the A84 to see if you were that grey van overtaking three cars and a caravan in the 9C and pouring rain this afternoon, yes, I looked up the weather for Stirling too but then remembered my camper was parked out front down here in Northampton so I wasn't one of those losers, phew!
Right, I've had my dinner and read your post above and to be honest I don't think you're quite reading into the general thrust of my previous posts.
I had intended to get a bit of friendly willy waving going here on the forum but sadly that now seems to have hit a bit of a bump in the road. See the idea here is that I give away some back handed weaknesses to my viewpoint with the idea of leaving a bit of room for the odd witty counter attack and certain amount of reality but this whole premise stumbles if the thread is taken at face value and tales of daring and toxic masculinity replace witty replies.
I did look up the A84 to see if you were that grey van overtaking three cars and a caravan in the 9C and pouring rain this afternoon, yes, I looked up the weather for Stirling too but then remembered my camper was parked out front down here in Northampton so I wasn't one of those losers, phew!
Well, I've got a 204 manual high-top campervan, and it's quick, and good for overtaking, and poor for economy (32-33, driven 'briskly'). I bought it because it was available locally at a good price when I was after a suitable van for conversion.
If there had been a 102 manual at the same time, same spec, for a lower price, I would have bought it instead.
Having owned several T4s and T5s (all campers) over the years, and tested many others for magazines, I reckon the 102 5-speed is about the sweetest overall combination, with the nicest gearing, and gets nearly 40mpg - driven precisely the same way as the 204 - with the revs kept up in the band, and briskly.
To me, it's all in the gearing, and the one I really couldn't get on with was the T5 140 manual.
Why? Because it was so high geared it wouldn't pull in 6th below 75mph. At 80+, it really went like an express train. Brilliant for the autobahnen, useless over here, and thirsty, too.
No such problem with the 102, nor with the 204, as it's better geared, and SO powerful.
I was never offered an 84 to test, but if it were at all sluggish, and I owned it, I would have had it remapped to 102.
Remember when a 102 T4 2.5litre was just about the most powerful van on the road? All things are relative!
If there had been a 102 manual at the same time, same spec, for a lower price, I would have bought it instead.
Having owned several T4s and T5s (all campers) over the years, and tested many others for magazines, I reckon the 102 5-speed is about the sweetest overall combination, with the nicest gearing, and gets nearly 40mpg - driven precisely the same way as the 204 - with the revs kept up in the band, and briskly.
To me, it's all in the gearing, and the one I really couldn't get on with was the T5 140 manual.
Why? Because it was so high geared it wouldn't pull in 6th below 75mph. At 80+, it really went like an express train. Brilliant for the autobahnen, useless over here, and thirsty, too.
No such problem with the 102, nor with the 204, as it's better geared, and SO powerful.
I was never offered an 84 to test, but if it were at all sluggish, and I owned it, I would have had it remapped to 102.
Remember when a 102 T4 2.5litre was just about the most powerful van on the road? All things are relative!
Similar threads
