davidwort

have a look at : http://forums.beyond.ca/showthread/t-10041.html I think to sum up their discussion/argument, a lightened flywheel will result in increased acceleration but also increased deceleration (due to the smaller rotating mass), so revs could drop a bit too fast between gears if you go too mad on the lightening. You could also loose some of the 'smoothing' effect of a heavy flywheel on the engines feel. BTW 1.6 mk1 GTI's had light flywheels compared to the 1.8 GTI and were generally known to be much more 'revvy'. David.

oil sounds a bit hot to me, valvers are generally the hottest running (in general driving) and see 110-116 on the MFA commonly, above that seems a bit hot even if it is within VW acceptable temps, especially for an 8v engine??? around 105-110 is the most efficient for a normally aspirated 8v, I know that as a fact from my dad's engine dyno testing days at GTI Engineering performance on the test bed peaked at 108 deg IIRC, that was on Mobil 1 10/40. David.

It's the same length as a carb mk2 golf 8v rad, and looks 2/3 the size of an ordinary 8v mk2 gti rad but has more tubes going across to compensate, I'm sure it's slightly less effective than the G60 rad as that is designed for a 160bhp car as opposed to the 130-140 of the 16v engine although the 16v obviously revs higher, and it's also interesting to note that the 2.0 16v has the same rad as the 1.8 and at 10% greater engine capacity will generate more heat than a 1.8 16v. There's obviously quite a margin for safety built into the 16v cooling system and unless you use a car on the track it's unlikely that UK weather is going to reach the extremes they were tested for. As long as oil temps don't rise too high and the water temps stay within a sensible range then the system is coping. Out of interest, when I replaced my 1.8 16v rad with a 'GSF special', what they listed was actually a carb 8v rad (just because it looked the same size) I tried it and it maintains temps just as well as the old (more tubes) genuine VAG 16v one even on a 2L block. David.

silicone grease (tube from maplins) or silicone spray works well for this. David.

reminds me of my old mk 1's, great fun :twisted: , especially the jetta, ugly as hell but very well balanced with the boot on the back, looked odd after fitting the golf wings and front panel though (see my graphic next to my post) David.

Well, TSR took 1200 quid off me for a bored KR block which then siezed after 4000 miles, the rebuild lasted 10,000 miles and did the same, IMO don't waste your time and hard earned cash with them. Everyone seems pleased with Stealth and they have always been dead polite to all of us on rolling road days up there. I actually got my head done by http://www.tts-performance.co.uk/homepage.shtml which do mainly bike stuff, but did an excellent job porting and flowing my 16v head a few years ago for about 600 quid, that included lower inlet manifold and 2 new exhaust valves, the head has outlasted more than 2 TSR blocks anyway :!: David.

I did the gearbox one on the drive with a jack under the sump (and a block of wood!) pretty easy although a bit fiddly getting the new one in for some reason, only two bolts it's just getting at them that's the problem. The front I did on a four poster ramp with a jack under the engine, have to be careful not to jack it too far and damage the rad etc.. it should come out without having to take anything off the engine though. David.

Best Quality? I know there are often different quality/suppliers for these type of parts, I got a cheapo one from Euro car parts a few years back and had no trouble, gearbox one too - not that the original had worn in 120,000 miles from what I could see, doesn't get very stressed like the front one. David.

it's KR 1.8's and 9A 2.0 16v C's and passats that have the same exhaust cam and different inlet cams, the mk3 ABF engine has different part numbers to these for both inlet and exhaust, I'm guessing that from all 3 the KR has the highest lift and duration inlet cam as this had no emission controls. David.

You have a corrado G60 (from your profile) with a mk3 golf 16v ABF engine, Uh? :scratch: David.

Although there are different part no's for the pumps the 1.8 and 2.016v pumps are basically the same and only about 120 quid from GSF when I got mine, they only listed a 2.0 part so I took my old one in (it's on an exchange basis anyway) and double checked before taking the new one away. Worth checking your pump against one they have in stock. David.

Hi Henny, It gets even more confusing when you read Haynes (nothing new there!) but the mk1's sold in some countries did have emission controls (e.g. California spec cars) and this was known as 'CIS-E' whereas the standard K-jet was known as 'CIS' [Constant Injection System] for some reason this has stuck in my head from my MK 1 days and I always forget the 9A engines system was called Motronic. I'm sure there's KL and KM Jetronic or similar too, cos XR3i's, Porsches and loads of other stuff used slightly modified version of this Bosch system. Not that any of this is massively interesting anyway... I'm boring myself now :geek: cheers, David.

Tippex?

It's a mk3 golf Diesel part 037 115 220B Have one fitted to my TSR 16v engine conversion David

Part No.s for downpipes: G60 536 253 087A 1.8 16v 192 253 208A 2.0 16v 358 253 087 VR6 1H0 253 087R 8V 1H2 253 087E golf 2 16v 192 253 208A (KR engine, same as 1.8 16v Corrado) David.

yup, have a look at the throttle body and you'll see a switch on there... have a look at a MKI golf GTI and there isn't one... There's not an awful lot of difference between K adn KE jetronic except for a couple of switches and a better idle stabilisation system on the KE... 8) I don't think it's the same as the Corrado is a bigger car, the engine bay is a different shape and I know that the Corrado downpipe is different from a Golfs... :? nope, the 1.8 16v C has exactly the same downpipe as a golf mk2 16v, the 2.0 16v C has a CAT and therefore a shorter downpipe without the first silencer. 1.8's have K-jet (only very minor differences to the 1970's golf GTIs K-jet) and 2.0's have KE-jet which adds knock sensors, a cat, lambda probe and a full ECU with fault recording but is still based on k-jet and will resort back to basic k-jet operation if the ECU fails. David. David.

couple of things: VW's quoted power outputs are only ever a guide, an old engine will be unlikely to have the same compression as a new one and so perform worse, also, many older VW engines are better once they have 'loosened up' from new, which is why the urban myth that all GTI's go faster the older their engines get exists. I've never seen any real evidence that the golf 2's are up on power compared to their corrado and passat equivalents, Also, putting a modified, gas flowed head on a tired bottom end is asking for trouble so unless you have stripped down an engine complete and know it's history it's best to rebuild completely if you wan't to create a reliable lump. A rolling road session, plus a compression test should find any major problems on an older engine and could transform an engine that is badly set up or has a ropey ignition system or a timing problem, it's not uncommon for simple things like the condition of plug leads or a refit of a timing belt one tooth out to leave a car running on significantly less power than it should be, so 100 quid or so spent on a couple of hours rolling road to maximise ignition advance on say Optimax fuel, plus new plugs, leads, dizzy cap, rotor arm, oil change, gearbox oil change, wheel alignment etc can easily gain you 10-15bhp if things are not quite right to start with, David.

'stage' heads i.e. stage 1, stage 2, stage 3 etc... are often used to refer to the headwork that has been done, e.g. porting, gasflowing, bigger valves etc... but are essentially meaningless and a marketing tool. This was very common terminology for sierra cosworth tuning too, but often included upping the boost on the turbos from a mild increase up to: 'your engine will last 5,000 miles maximum on this' :twisted: Stage 1 is often used to describe a cylinder head that has had just basic gas flowing work done though, i.e. cheapest basic headwork. David.

yep, which is now 97 quid plus vat from VAG, not funny :cry: also, the oil pump is a higher capacity in the 9A/6A block and has a different splined type fitment to the oil pump gear, which is why the gear is a different part. David.

I've done it several times on my 1990 16v, it is easiest clearance wise to take the front off, but I've always done it by hanging a winch from the rafters in my garage and lifting the engine and gearbox up out of the bay (bonnet removed obviously) and simply pushing the car away from the hanging engine, a bit tight but easy enough to do and saved taking all the front off David.

same as for a late model golf 2 16v (89 on I think), i.e. the bigger, wider sized 16v air filter, my Jetex Response panel filter was ordered from Motech as a late golf2 16v item and was fine on my November 1990 1.8 16v David.

I think you're looking at around 50 quid an hour for a rolling road tuning session, a couple of hours is generally needed to try different settings of ignition advance and mixture and to diagnose any problem components. Good bet is to get the car on the rollers on a forum or club day and if something looks problematic then book it in for a longer tuning session. David.

do you have a dynoplot from stealth for this?, would be interesting to compare it to a standard 16v 1.8 plot or other plots with schrick/piper/kent cams. David.

by passat, I meant 16v passat, I think the 2L 8v has the same one too, I just asked for a 1990 16v passat front mount from GSF and it was the right one. cheers, David.

OK, so how do you get more fuel if the pressure at the injectors stays the same? I'm still missing something here I think :scratch: taken from: http://www.volvoclub.org.uk/tech/fuel_injection/k_jetronic3.htm David.