davidwort

fuel pickup is at the bottom of the tank, so the main worry when running dry is anything floating on the surface of the fuel, not really at the bottom of the tank. Fuel filter on mine is stil original at 132,000 miles and no problems at all. I'd say such poor fuel economy could be down to injectors not spraying properly or the cold start injector leaking all the time instead of only operating at cold startup. have your emissions checked and check things like plugs, leads, rotor arm, dizzy cap. If for some reason the timing has not been set correctly, or the timing belt is out a tooth or two you can get poor performance ehich leads to driving with a heavier right foot and horrible fuel economy. To give you an idea, even when driving with a mixture of steady 60/70 and hard driving, my 2.016v, which is a 1.8 engine bored out, never gives me less than 29 mpg, I usually average 33 ish and MFA reads 42/43 at a steady 60. Reads about 37/38 at a steady 70-80 on the m-way. The mpg of 29+(more regularly 33+) mpg is from tank to tank and not just what the MFA says, although it's rarely out by more than 2 or 3 mpg over a whole tankful. In short, you should be getting much better mpg unless you never get out of second gear! Get everything checked over fully :) David.

Yep, my rear shocks are boge gas dampers for a mk 2 golf 16v(uprated over standard 16v items), bought from GSF, don't reccommend them though as they are far too stiff for the rear. David.

what you're referring to is the 'idler' pulley that doesn't actually drive the water pump at all it simply deflects the alternator belt away from the cam belt cover area, it's the second pulley that drives the PS pump that actually drives the water pump, 16v's had this arrangement up to about 1991 when they changed to a differrent arrangement of belts and pulleys to avoid having to have this extra pulley. They do die, as the bearing surface breaks up (copper mesh with some other material coating it) and they're expensive, I think I got one for about 70 quid new from Volks-Apart but I don't think GSF and Euro Car Parts do them at all, something stupid like 130quid from VAG. They make an intermittent rattle sometimes as they start to wear and noises from this part of the engine bay are difficult to trace, you could remove the belt concerned and run the car fow a few seconds to track it down. David.

9A, David.

what you want is the passat haynes manual May 1988 to 1991 No. 1647 (purple cover) (poss. out of print now) This covers KR and 9A engines, although is a bit sketchy with diagrams on the 16v cars, useful as the passat seems to have more in common with the corrado than the golf 2. David.

I got 4 F1's (195-50-15's) last year (older tread pattern) and they have been great, they're on 15 inch borbets which are 7inch wide rather than the standard C's 6.5inch rims, seems to give a bit more control of the sidewalls, absolutely piddle on the Yokos I had before in the wet :D David. I didn't think they did them in this size??? (I have Michelin Pilot's on at the moment...) The trouble with the cheaper tyres (on-line dealer) is that you'll still need to get them fitted/balanced. By the time you work out the extra cost it's not actually that much cheaper :( (unless you know the place that's going to fit them and get 'mates rates' :lol:) DtM.

only way to check is to remove the switch and check continuity across the connections(for each switch position) with a test light or simple multimeter. For checking LED's I've found a 7 volt dc transformer (old mobile phone transformer) gives enough juice to make the corrado switch LED's glow, a bulb can be easily checked viually or with the multimeter to be sure, you would need to take at least the rocking front part of the switch off to get at the bulb though. If the switch operates the lights OK but doesn't illuminate the switch itself it can only be the bulb inside. David.

Anyone ever tried a golf 4 armrest, wonder if it would fit? I find the one on my golf pretty good, can move it up out of the way completely or dip it down so you have easier access to the gear lever and hand-brake. I might try offering up my golf one tonight see if it would be practical to do. David.

Headlight switch should do that, it's a warning lamp I think (quite pathetic instead of a buzzer) and also comes on if you turn off the ignition whilst the switch is pressed all the way to dip beam. AFAIK, fog light switch should operate as fronts only (position 1) then front and rear on together on position 2, you could always get a second fog switch for the dash? David.

could also knacker the low end torque as a wider inlet = slower inlet velocity = lower torque. Not good on a 1.8. :( If my smaller inlet manifold is good for over 165bhp on my 2L engine conversion I'd be very surprised if you get more power from a 50mm inlet on a standard 1.816v. You'd be better off just internally cleaning up the castings on your original manifold, so you get a smoother and faster flow but don't increase the inlet diameter. It's really the head that is the main restriction to flow anyway and adding greater capacity to the inlet isn't going to change what your standard head can pump through. my 2p, David.

dunno, but I fitted a passat centre sun visor to mine 357 857 555 (6FD grey) dead handy for stopping the sun over the rear view mirror. about 12 quid plus VAT from stealers, or free from a scrappy :D :D :D clips on to front of sun-roof motor cover. David.

do you mean downpipe rather than manifold? never heard of a cracked manifold as they are cast iron! The downpipe is a ba-lamb, best to do with the car up on a garage ramp as you need like 3ft of clearance to get it in/out over the sub frame - and then it's blinkin tight. David.

I think all post 92 cars had the 70 litre tank rather than the early 55 litre one. David. they certainly do biggrim......15 gals over 12 gals of the earlier models

there must be a point at which more ignition advance doesn't equal more power?

so how do you 'index' a triple electrode Bosch plug then? :wink:

Not quite how I understand it, the 1.8 16v was designed to run on higher octane fuel (high compression engine etc..) but providing the fuel used in it doesn't cause detonation you will get the same power as if you put racing fuel in it, it's just you have a greater resistance to knock from 98, 99 or 100 RON. The mapping in the 1.8's ignition advance ECU is a fixed set of values and provides a good error margin for tolerances and fuel quality, i.e. a set of values that is pretty much a lowest common denominator. This is why you can get a small amount of extra power from a K-star or chip tuning a fully electronic fuel injection system as you can run the fuel a bit richer and with a bit more advance where the engine needs it(or can get away with it) to get the most from one specific engine. Knock does occur well before you can hear it or really feel it on an engine so it's possible that you could lose a bit of power on regular unleaded even if you think the car doesn't pink. I've played around with Optimax and Tesco 95 and to be honest with slightly more advance at idle(base setting) than spec I still seem to get the same performance with the cheap stuff and no inking under load, just lucky I guess. David.

OK, if a bit harsh compared to some springs, don't uprate the dampers whatever you do with Eibachs, unles you drive on perfectly smooth roads all the time. I made that mistake when the original shocks wore out and have been bouncing around ever since, does corner very well though, almost completely flat without uprated roll bars, but I think I'd rather have some cushioning esp. on the rears. I noticed they do make the car quite level when lowered on these springs, looks like some other lowering spring sets (Boge) tend to make the front lower than the back. David.

Yep that was it! That C of yours was pretty healthy, nice smooth power curve and lovely flat torque curve too, I think it always makes more sense to compare cars figures on the same RR on the same day rather than just read too much into the peak values you get. Not still got a Saxo have you?! :wink: http://www.pistonheads.com/rants/defaul ... oryId=3132 cheers, David.

as far as I know the only actual 'measured' value on a RR is the torque at the roller, as the roller effectively brakes the car with a 'matched' force to keep the car at a steady speed. everything else is calculated and has various corrections built into the software. The temperature and pressure values can have big effects on calculated wheel and estimated flywheel figures. Problem is, manufacturers quote figures for new engines in very controlled conditions and it's difficult to get a real car to 'fit' these figures without some dubious and pretty un-scientific practice. The way I look at it is my on road performance seems to bear out the wheel BHP figures fairly well, I can easily match a standard 1.8T golf and pretty much keep up with Leon cupra's so I must be in the 150-170 bhp area if these newish cars are running close to spec. I'd say my flywheel figures could be too high, maybe they should be nearer 150-155bhp, but it seems likely that most RR give everyone a slightly optimistic calculated crank bhp, mainly because it keeps everybody happy! I think it's more 'cock-up' than 'conspriacy' though :D cheers, David.

take a look at some of the info on this site, particularly the Technical articles and the one on transmission losses, very interesting even if the maths gets over my head quite quickly :) http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/ http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm I spoke to Dave Baker at length before starting work on my car and he knows his stuff. David.

Thought a few 16v owners might like to see these power curves from AMD's rolling road, one is for my 16v as a standard 1.8, the transmission loss etc is a bit on the dodgy side as it shouldn't be more than about 15% for a FWD car, but the comparison to the 2.0 plot is interesting (I think :) ) The inlet and exhaust manifolds have been cleaned up and the head gas flowed, together with the 1984cc bottom end give a pretty good BHP hike. The cams are the same 1.8 ones and have the characteristic 1.8 peaky power curve, and you can see from the two lines that they have exactly the same characteristics on the engine after the engine conversion. My overlaying of graphs is not perfect and there's plenty of room for error in all of this data but you can clearly see how the low revs figures are virtually the same and it's only over 4,000rpm that it really gets going. Calculated BHP at the wheels is about 20bhp up which is about what you'd expect from this sort of engine work. I've also got a plot from Stealth with a standard 2.016v plotted against mine (run on RR on the same day last year), standard 2.0 16v has a very flat torque curve and actually more torque below 3500rpm but the power curve is also flatter and makes about the same 110bhp at the wheels as a standard 1.8. The 1.8 cams give a small mid range dip in torque and power as the trade off for the top end but on the road it's a pretty good compromise. David.

nothing measurable, just makes things louder, I'd just put a panel filter in and remove the 'snorkel' tube, if you want to drill the bottom half of the air box you can, but it will generally suck in warmer air than it would if connected to the back of the headlight as standard (warm air, less dense, less power), plus you loose the warm air pickup from the manifold on very cold days and warm-up. IMO exhausts and induction kits make very little difference if any, other than cosmetic, it's possible an old system could have a loose baffle resricting flow, but it is unlikely that any aftermarket system will be any better than a new OEM one. In the end it all comes down to the sound and cosmetics of the aftermarket stuff. Best performance improvements for a 16v are: 1) good quality headwork IRO 10-20bhp 2) capacity increase IRO 5-10bhp (plus better torque) to do better than this you are looking at blueprinting and mega-money Slick 50 championship golf 16v's used to make about 200bhp, but cost thousands of pounds to prepare and revved to over 8000rpm to achieve this. David.

I know I've got a 16v not a G60, but I use Synta silver too, IMO fully synthetic is only worthwhile if you keep it in the car long enough to justify it's long life properties and cost. It might be a bit easier on cranking when it's -10 outside in the morning but I've used mobil 1 and magnatec and have not really noticed the difference. I'd say use synta silver and change it every 5-6000 miles David.

s**t :!: :?: if it pinks at idle there is definitely something wrong! :shock: You should only notice pinking when the engine is under load, e.g. driving slowly up a hill with your foot to the floor in 5th, this is where an engine with knock sensors would retard the ignition automatically. Some 16v's don't pink on UL others do, generally a good quality fuel like Shell regular UL and you'll get away with it. In short, if your 1.8 16v is OK on UL, you're wasting your money on better fuel as K-jet injection can't adjust the ignition advance to take advantage of it. David.

This may help too, if you don't fit a higher output alternator, fit an 8v golf alternator pulley, these are ever so slightly smaller than the 16v ones and will spin your alternator quicker, doesn't harm anything as far as I know because I've had one on for years with no trouble. David.