Re: V6 24V not fast enough
I think I've also sort of cracked this riddle.
I noticed the Jetta redlined in 2nd would hit under 40, and redlined in 3rd would hit 60.
The 916 redlining in 2nd I believe hits over 60. (someone correct me).
So I believe what's happening is that in the Jetta those peak "kicks" in the back are greater in terms of G value than anything on the 916, but overall it's slower. The 916 is an overaal smooth (though lesser) G. Kindof a shame that it doesn't push you back in your seat more at those moments.
This theory would explain why some weeks ago I drove a 1992 non turbo 911 (250hp, 60k miles), a 1985 Corvette (243 hp, 80k miles) and a 1998 BMW Z3M (321hp, 30k miles). None felt (significantly) faster than the 916.
I drove the Z3M first, I was thinking I would really be able to tell the difference to the 916. But when I floored it in 2nd it just made alot of rattle noise to the redline compared to the 916. The 916 sounds and feels smooth compared to the rattling engine sound & feel of the Z3M. It didn't feel much faster, didn't pin you in the seat much more.
The Corvette was an automatic, I believe during a whole second after I (gently) floored it in 1st nothing happened, which surprised me, then it felt like it kind of accelerated the same as the 916, and then just a bit faster nearing 60.
The 911 was rubbish, a whole lot of rattle, and nothing else (worse than the Z3M).
Maybe this was the whole Jetta syndrome on the 916.
Come to think of it I also drove an Opel (Vauxhall) GTC OPC (240hp) and a Seat Leon FR, those felt kind of the same obviously the OPC was faster but both just felt slightly faster than the Jetta.
Reading all of this back, I think I need to get my head straight, either that or I need a 500hp car minimum, preferably one made before 1990.