having driven both i would agree that the cupra is the comfier option and with a remap is still probably fast enough for most people. I think the R looks a lot more aggressive and does feel sportier but sacrifices some ride comfort. I can get over 400miles from a tank on my remapped lcr with fairly gentle driving. Usually get between 350-400 miles of mixed driving.
-
Welcome to our new sponsor Lecatona, a brand dedicated to enhancing performance for VAG group sports cars, including SEAT, Audi, Volkswagen and Škoda. Specializing in High Pressure Fuel Pump (HPFP) upgrades.
Chipped LC vs Standard LCR 210
- Thread starter cuprablue
- Start date
So how does the remap aid fuel economy? I would have thought that with more power available, economy would have suffered?
Thanks for the replies.
So pretty much what I thought then. R is faster but not massively so, and ultimately handles and stops better but again not massively so.
Having looked at a couple of before/after remap engine curves of the LC and LCR I had a feeling that the stock LCR would seem to hold on to it's power longer as vs a remapped LC. The torque curve is flat (although lower) for a good 1.5k rpm higher up the rev band than a mapped LC which to be honest looks a little on the peaky side (as in a lowish rev peak) torque wise, with a relatively narrow "peak". I would guess this would mean that the LCRs straight line performance advantage is going to be in the upper 1/3 of the rev range, would that be right?
I'm assuming that the tail happyness of the LC would be cured by a suspension upgrade?
In fact would I be correct in saying that even without going down the bigger turbo route you could mod an LC to be as quick, handle and brake as well (or better) than a stock LCR (either bhp version) ? Question being would it be worth it?
I have to say that personally I prefer the more plain looks of the LC as being of a more mature age bracket I don't really want to look like a boy racer in any way.
cuprablue
So pretty much what I thought then. R is faster but not massively so, and ultimately handles and stops better but again not massively so.
Having looked at a couple of before/after remap engine curves of the LC and LCR I had a feeling that the stock LCR would seem to hold on to it's power longer as vs a remapped LC. The torque curve is flat (although lower) for a good 1.5k rpm higher up the rev band than a mapped LC which to be honest looks a little on the peaky side (as in a lowish rev peak) torque wise, with a relatively narrow "peak". I would guess this would mean that the LCRs straight line performance advantage is going to be in the upper 1/3 of the rev range, would that be right?
I'm assuming that the tail happyness of the LC would be cured by a suspension upgrade?
In fact would I be correct in saying that even without going down the bigger turbo route you could mod an LC to be as quick, handle and brake as well (or better) than a stock LCR (either bhp version) ? Question being would it be worth it?
I have to say that personally I prefer the more plain looks of the LC as being of a more mature age bracket I don't really want to look like a boy racer in any way.
cuprablue
So how does the remap aid fuel economy? I would have thought that with more power available, economy would have suffered?
I think this tends to largely be down to the extra torque that a decent remap provides. More grunt lower down means that you can happily drive at slower speeds in higher gears. As such the engine tends to be revving slower, which aids economy.
Arn
id say thats all about right, however if you do plan to do a remap, suspension, brakes etc to bring it up to 'R' standard then getting an 'R' may work out samish money wise (dependant on age etc) but the cupra would not get that money back when you sell it on.
sounds to me you may like a cupra, with suspension upgrade, remap and perhaps a suttle brake upgrade to something like the pagid set up.
If you go brembo its not so cheap and you will need to upgrade to 18" alloys to clear the calipers, and even then some alloys of this size dont clear them.
one thing your forgeting is that although they are both 1.8t's the lcr engine is cast differently 1 it has a stronger block then you have a different turbo and a twin intercooler set up so even with a remap they would pull in completly different ways.
also being twin intercooler means it has a different throttle body.
also being twin intercooler means it has a different throttle body.
The thing that stopped me buying a LCR was the extra cost, when i brought mine the difference between a LC and LCR was 3k. Although the LCR has its advantages I didn't feel it was worth an extra £3k.
As people have said you can modify the LC to be as good if not better than a standard LCR and it will cost you less than £3K
remap £500
suspension £600
brakes £200
Total £1300
As people have said you can modify the LC to be as good if not better than a standard LCR and it will cost you less than £3K
remap £500
suspension £600
brakes £200
Total £1300
I think the answer is that if you are poor you buy a junior hot hatch like the LC
If you have the money and want a quality product you buy the LCR
If you are really poor you buy an Ibiza
Discuss/
(lights blue touch paper and retires to a safe distance......please note this post is what is known as 'tongue-in-cheek' those SCn members without a sense of humour should probably not reply)
If you have the money and want a quality product you buy the LCR
If you are really poor you buy an Ibiza
Discuss/
(lights blue touch paper and retires to a safe distance......please note this post is what is known as 'tongue-in-cheek' those SCn members without a sense of humour should probably not reply)
Last edited:
Personally i think there is a pretty huge gap in the way the LC and LCR handle. The LC, whilst a lot better than the Golf its based on, still rolls far far far too much, has shockingly bad damping and is just far too soft.
The R on the other hand is just much more direct and poised. Yes, still not perfect, but when a chassis' a dog, there aint that much you can do with it.
The LC needs uprated suspension to cope with its modest 180hp, never mind remapped figures IMO.
The R on the other hand is just much more direct and poised. Yes, still not perfect, but when a chassis' a dog, there aint that much you can do with it.
The LC needs uprated suspension to cope with its modest 180hp, never mind remapped figures IMO.
Just to add something in the mix here - I bought an LCR because I don't want to buy a car and then start having to spend money to make it 'as good or better' than the top of the range model. I appreciate that what you've spent isn't as much as the extra for an LCR, but when it comes to selling your car I really don't think that the mods will do you any favours, and I certainly don't think you'll get your money back - in fact modded cars seem to ring alarm bells with a lot of people and may make you loose more money, So then a standard car would have been a better bet, because you will get back more of the money you paid out to start with. Sort of
Just to add to what Reg says... the insurance for a car with that many modifications would be a fair bit higher than a standard LCR. Then you have the issue of warranty, which would now technically be void. And all that just to get to the point where you think your car is equal to an LCR.
And even with all that, you haven't touched on the looks and bodywork on the LCR. I appreciate this is personal opinion, but I think the LCR is a more aggressive looking car, and I like that
And even with all that, you haven't touched on the looks and bodywork on the LCR. I appreciate this is personal opinion, but I think the LCR is a more aggressive looking car, and I like that
Personally I prefer the looks of the LC. The front of the LCR doesn't match, some of the grill is honey combo and some of it isn't. Would look much better if it was.
I take your point about the insurance, and I cant comment as my car is standard so I have no clue about insuring a modded car.
The reason I brought a LC over a LCR was simply i couldn't justify the extra £3k or so it would have cost me.
At the end of the day they are both very good cars and the differences are fairly small. Our roads are so congested, how oftern do you really get to push your car? So is it worth spending the extra, when you can never really use it?
I take your point about the insurance, and I cant comment as my car is standard so I have no clue about insuring a modded car.
The reason I brought a LC over a LCR was simply i couldn't justify the extra £3k or so it would have cost me.
At the end of the day they are both very good cars and the differences are fairly small. Our roads are so congested, how oftern do you really get to push your car? So is it worth spending the extra, when you can never really use it?
Absolutely true Tim, personal preference is probably going to be the major factor, along with cost.
I have experience of insuring a car with mild engine mods, and extensive engine mods. I'm not doing either again because it is quick simply a complete pain in the arse for insurance and any warranty.
And you're quite right in saying why buy a faster car because we can't use it, but if that was the case why don't we drive a Micra or something? Because they are **** and we don't want to. There is no justification for 'needing' a car with more than 60bhp, its a want and I'm not ashamed to admit that!
I have experience of insuring a car with mild engine mods, and extensive engine mods. I'm not doing either again because it is quick simply a complete pain in the arse for insurance and any warranty.
And you're quite right in saying why buy a faster car because we can't use it, but if that was the case why don't we drive a Micra or something? Because they are **** and we don't want to. There is no justification for 'needing' a car with more than 60bhp, its a want and I'm not ashamed to admit that!
I can't say I can agree with that. I wouldn't say the suspension is too soft personally, I find it over firm if anything but this is because of the high speed compression damping, which IMO is too heavy. High speed rebound damping isn't too great though as the car does have a tendency to "jump" over bumps in the road.
There is a tendency by most people to move to stiffer springing to solve too much body roll and dive/squating of the suspension. Motorcycle manufacturers went down this road in the 80s and then in the 90s they learned that damping is what it is all about not heavy springing. To this day it amazes me that motorcycle manufacturers can manage to get the suspension far more correct than car ones can despite having a much harder time of it due to the much lower ration of sprung to unsprung weight compared to a cars.
note : when I talk of high speed damping I'm not refering to vehicle speed but the speed of wheel movement. IME perfect suspension (or as close as you can get to it) is acheived with relatively soft springs, heavy (ish) low speed compression damping (this stops the car wallowing at high speed) and relatively light high speed compression and rebound damping (this combined with the soft (ish) spring) allows the car to soak up uneven road surfaces keeping the tyres stuck to the road.
edited to add - also people talk of suspension movement as if it's the nemisis of good handling. This isn't true. A car needs to dive and roll a bit to acheive maxium grip from weight transfer under cornering and braking etc
cuprablue
Last edited:
Similar threads
