Corrado differences

[wussel 0]

I am planning to get a Corrado 1.8 16v or 2.0 16v in a month or so. I am finding it hard to find info about these two cars.

 

I think the 1.8 16v was built between 1989 and 1992 then the 2.0 took over up to the end. Do all 2.0 16v's have a catalytic converter, hence the same bhp and slower performance? Can the cat be taken off them and still pass the MOT emissions even though it is built after 1992?

 

Are the 1.8 and 2.0 basicly the same trim level or was there a mid life facelift?

 

With all Corrados is it just really the engine which is different, or is there different suspension, brakes, trim, etc?

 

Is the 1.8 16v basicly the same engine as in the mk2 Golf GTI? Is it a similar real world speed, not 0-60?

 

The reason I am wondering about a 1.8 or a 2.0 is the age and therefor the condition of the car. It there anything specific I have to look of on the bodywork side of things?

 

Thanks in advance.

[Jim 2]

Ok... you are right about the age thing. The 2.0 16v took over as the only 16v available as of 1992. All 2.0 16v's have a cat as standard, and as far as I know you cannot decat the car and have it pass the emissions test.

 

The later model 16v's were facelifted with a similar interior style to the facelift VR6.. round dials, etc.

 

On the 16vs, basically everything was the same with regards to brakes and suspension.. the VR had a different suspension however because of the additional weight of the VR6 engine.

 

I believe the Corrado 1.8 16v will lose out against the Golf MK2 16v in the 0-60 dash, but is more likely to cruise past at higher speed because of slightly different power or gearing figures? But don't quote me on that...

 

The bodys on the Corrado should be pretty tight.. there shouldn't really be any rust, and things are built reasonably well as you might expect from a german car. One known problem is incorrectly fitted aftermarket windscreens.. basically they rarely get them right unless they use an original VAG piece.. and you end up with a bad fit, and water leaks.. I speak from experience on this one :)

 

But if you want a comprehensive list of stuff for things to look for, like all known common foibles and issues then let us know.. I am sure we can put together a good list of the most well known stuff :)

[wussel 0]

One known problem is incorrectly fitted aftermarket windscreens.. basically they rarely get them right unless they use an original VAG piece.. and you end up with a bad fit, and water leaks.. I speak from experience on this one :)

 

But if you want a comprehensive list of stuff for things to look for, like all known common foibles and issues then let us know.. I am sure we can put together a good list of the most well known stuff :)

 

Tell me about it, I spent all last winter with a stripped out Golf trying to find a water leak, it turned out to be a rotton windscreen frame, so I got the seal changed and sold it.

 

I would have thought there would have been a list of things to look for in the FAQ section of this forum. Also where has the http://www.vw-corrado-club.co.uk/ website gone, I had this link to that last year now it is offline.

[Jim 2]

Well unfortunately things like FAQ's take time to write.. I love spending time at this place, but I also have real life to work on :)

 

I'm sure we'll get an FAQ together eventually though.

[vr6storm 0]

rigth wussel,the 1.8 16v was indeed replaced in 1992 by the 2.0 16v but in approx April-92 and was indeed fitted with the cat as standard,bhp was identical but the 2.0 16v had better torque though was fractionally slower in both 0-60 and top speed.........as for emissions without the cat i'm not too sure :? as it was for emissions reasons that the 1.8 16v was dropped and replaced by the 2.0 16v

as for trim levels they'll be pretty much the same not a 100% on this but am pretty sure all 2.0 16v's should have E/W's and ABS whereas not all 1.8 16v's will have E/W...and i don't think ABS was available on the 1.8 16v especially early examples.........

and the 1.8 16v is almost if not identical to the mk2 golf GTI 16v though it seems to have lost 3bhp over the golf :?

as for facelifts.......there was an exterior facelift for the 92M/Y that all 2.0 16v's will have and thats the slightly different bumpers,flush-fit foglights/indicators,3-bar grille,estoril alloys,bigger fuel tank and VR6 bonnet

and the interior facelift would be for the 93M/Y which comprises of the rotary heater controls,relocated E/W&E/M switches on new design door cards,revised dashboard and instruments

 

thats all i can think off the top of my head

[sc16v 0]

How come your not opting for VR6, after a GT4 a 16v might feel slower.

[Jim 2]

How come your not opting for VR6, after a GT4 a 16v might feel slower.

 

He already mentioned in another thread.. looking to get a Corrado because its similar to a MK2 Golf, but that there quite a few less C's on the road than there are Golfs.

 

Plus he wants the 16v as its quite a bit more affordable than the VR.. and it'll save him money over the GT4 which owning a VR probably wouldn't do :)

[wussel 0]

How come your not opting for VR6, after a GT4 a 16v might feel slower.

 

He already mentioned in another thread.. looking to get a Corrado because its similar to a MK2 Golf, but that there quite a few less C's on the road than there are Golfs.

 

Plus he wants the 16v as its quite a bit more affordable than the VR.. and it'll save him money over the GT4 which owning a VR probably wouldn't do :)

 

Yeah well said Jim. Apparently VR6s are about the the same MPG as my car at 22-24ish, also the insurance is a bit more group 18-20 according to Parkers compared with 17 for my car.

 

I am heading in to a "sensible" period of my life wanting to get a house.

 

Loads of useful stuff I didn't know already, thanks guys, keep it up.

[vr6storm 0]

right wussel,

here in (my opinion of course) are the pros and cons of both 16 valvers

 

1.8 16v

 

PRO's

a bit faster 0-60 and top speed than the 2.0 16v

£1k-1.5k entry level tho £2k upwards starting price for decent ones

easier obtainable engine bits.....just look for a golf gti 16v if the engine goes bang

don't need a cat fitted

CON's

really has to have super u/l to avoid pinking.....tho some do seem to run fine with 95-ron

some have real poverty spec interiors(manual windows etc)

quite a few have fallen into less caring owners hands

fog lights and indicators look a bit dated with being recessed

older style heater controls(personal opinion here btw)

 

2.0 16v

 

PRO's

newer........96 reg'd ones newest

can run on 95-ron

all have the later body mods

late 92 regd cars should have the interior facelifts(personal opinion here btw)

£2k-2.5k entry level

????ABS standard fitment????

 

CON's

slightly slower than the 1.8 16v

have to have a cat

some early ones have the earlier interior(personal opinion here btw)

ABS can be neglected and cost a small fortune to rectify

£3.5k+ for the best ones

 

 

hope that helps you a bit :wink:

[Jim 2]

I believe ABS was a standard 2.0 16v / facelift feature..?

 

So the engine in the 1.8 16v is different to the 2.0 16v then? I always figured it was just the same with just a larger displacement?

 

So does it use a different fuel injection system, etc? Kinda curious to know as I was never sure to be honest :)

[Joe M 0]

The 2.0 16v would be the one I would go for, they can easily be made faster than the 1.8 by getting a cylinder head from a 1.8 16v and swapping it over. Will also provide peace of mind on a new car by having a new head gasket.

There also much easier to drive about town as they have a decent amount of low end grunt.

[chuck 0]

The 2.0 uses a combination of digifant and K-jet injection systems. The 1.8 is purely K-Jet, same as the golf. I suspect the reason the C 1.8 loses a wee bit of power over the golf is that in an effort to create more torque for the C (heavier car) they stuck a 42mm inlet on as opposed to the golf 50mm inlet.

 

Sure the 1.8 can come in "poverty" spec, but you can't break a windy up/down window :lol: . Besides, thats all the early ones don't have as far as I know, Mine has sunroof too. ABS was an option for all 1.8 16v. (think the 2.0 16v has extras such as variable intermittent windscreen wipers etc...)

 

Depends what you want. Mines a 1.8, and its quick (well I think so - I haven't driven a VR6 or G60), but only when wound up. Town driving can be a bit tiresome tho. The 2.0 is probably a lot more drivable around town. There's another thread on this somewhere too.

[Jim 2]

I never found my 2.0 16v that driveable around town.. my Saxo is miles better as its geared for pulling really well at low revs. Did a comfortable drive between sites for work today with 4 people in the car and I barely noticed.. compared to my Corrado where you could really tell when you had people in the car, and were just chugging about in the lower revs...

 

I guess thats the problem with the 16v engines on the Corrado.. they only really come into their element once you get above 3000RPM and get the engine singing :)

 

*edit*

 

Oh, and thanks for the engine info.. that helped clear that up. I think it helps to explain why a guy who works in the motor vehicle department was a little stumped by the fuel injection system on my car when I let him take a look at it.. style electronic injection components, and some older style mechanical bits..

[vr6storm 0]

I believe ABS was a standard 2.0 16v / facelift feature..?

 

So the engine in the 1.8 16v is different to the 2.0 16v then? I always figured it was just the same with just a larger displacement?

 

So does it use a different fuel injection system, etc? Kinda curious to know as I was never sure to be honest :)

 

wasn't 100% sure if it did have standard ABS :wink:

 

 

and if memory serves me right its actually an AUDI design and apart from the C was fitted to the Passat........afterall just a year later VW had the ABF 2.0 16v engine in the Mk3 Golf GTI......which if that was fitted to the C would have been a huge improvement

[Joe M 0]

and if memory serves me right its actually an AUDI design and apart from the C was fitted to the Passat........afterall just a year later VW had the ABF 2.0 16v engine in the Mk3 Golf GTI......which if that was fitted to the C would have been a huge improvement

 

The main differences i know of are.

 

Bigger displacement

Different injection system that adds in a lambda sensor and an ecu (k-motronic as opposed to k-jetronic).

More restrictive cylinder head.

 

Apparently the C 2.0 16v is a better engine than the Golf 2.0 16v, its just less powerful.

The best 16v from standard parts is supposed to be the block of a Corrado 2.0 16v, the cylinder head from a mk2 Golf 16v and the injection system from a mk3 Golf 16v.

 

This is what I would have done to my 16v if I had kept it.

[wussel 0]

Thanks people all good info.

 

I must admit I am heading towards the 2.0 16v now what what you are saying. newer car and more potential in the engine are the main things.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

 

The main differences i know of are.

 

More restrictive cylinder head.

 

It's only the inlet cam that's different.

 

Apparently the C 2.0 16v is a better engine than the Golf 2.0 16v, its just less powerful.

 

Indeed, the Passat and Corrado share the same 2.0 short block where as the Golf got the tall block which doesn't rev as well.

 

The best 16v from standard parts is supposed to be the block of a Corrado 2.0 16v, the cylinder head from a mk2 Golf 16v and the injection system from a mk3 Golf 16v.

 

Yeah sounds about right but you don't really need the KR head as it's no different to the 2.0 one. You just need the KR manifolds and cams and a KR's K-Jetronic is able to supply enough juice, even better with K start KS-301 though. Good for 165-170bhp.

 

Cheers

Kev

[Joe M 0]

The head on the 1.8L 16v has larger intake ports but smaller exhaust ports compared to a 2.0 16v head.

 

 

So really either head would do if it was ported and polished anyway.

[wussel 0]

I have found another difference by myself, the 1.8 16v has a 12 gallon fuel tank and the 2.0 a 15 gallon one (the same size as the one in my GT-Four sop hopfully i will be able to get more than 250 miles out of a tank). Not really a huge difference I know, but less visits to the petrol station the better.

 

BTW I found that on an old scan of a magazine on http://www.redcorrado.com