turbocorrado 0 Posted September 7, 2003 just wondering how 2.0 16v's compare to 1.8 16v 's... got the chance of a new one.. anybody out there own one. cheers andy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jim 2 Posted September 7, 2003 I used to own a 2.0 16v, but as I have never driven the 1.8 16v, I can't really tell you if its any better or any worse than. I believe speeds & performance are similar because where the additional power would have been gained due to engine capacity increase, it was negated by the need for a catalytic converter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markTTC 0 Posted September 8, 2003 Some people will tell you that the 1.8 16V is a bit quicker - personally I don't think there's much in it. I was following a 1.8 in my 2.0 on the way back from Woburn, and I was more than a match for him! Cheers Mark Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Linus Van Pelt 0 Posted September 11, 2003 Some people will tell you that the 1.8 16V is a bit quicker - personally I don't think there's much in it. I was following a 1.8 in my 2.0 on the way back from Woburn, and I was more than a match for him! Cheers Mark I was digging up my pdf of the '95 brochure last night when I found I also had a roadtest between the two models... For all the 0-40, 0-50, 0-60 times, the 1.8 is quoted as being faster, but we're talking 1/10's of a second here (reaction times would render this one null and void anyway :lol:). 0-60 for the 1.8 was 8.2 and the 2.0 as 8.3 The 2.0 wins out in the 50-70 whilst in fifth, but the performance really is almost identical. The only difference in other specs is that the 2.0 has slightly more torque ( about 20 ft/lbs), and peaks at slightly lower revs, but then it's also slightly heavier... Not much to choose between them I'd say (i.e in the real world) DtM. ...oh and the 1.8 has a top speed of 132 vs. 130 for the 2.0... :roll: Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scott 0 Posted September 11, 2003 just wondering how 2.0 16v's compare to 1.8 16v 's... got the chance of a new one.. anybody out there own one. cheers andy I have owned the 1.8 16v in past..... and driven a few 2.0 16v's..... 1.8 16V is the quickest... although you have to rev it.... 2.0 16V is the easiest to drive as has more mid range torque if overall slower.... Obviously if 1.8 16V you get pre face lift..... 2.0 16V has post face lift (and IMAO the best looking) ... 1.8 16V has the centre rest in rear seat though *;) (anorak alert!).... If you are thinking of going from a 1.8 to a 2.0 16V then I think you will be dissapointed......... My 2p. Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lesarcsneil 0 Posted September 11, 2003 The 2.0 16v doesn't have the surge at the top end like the 1.8 16v as you can feel the cat holding it back a bit above 6k rpm so it doesn't feel as quick. In the real world there is nothing between the two cars. I run my 2.0 16v on optimax and it makes a big difference on responsiveness. My engine is standard but has been set up by a specialist so it's running well. Both engines don't really loosen up until they've got about 70k miles on them. Put 4 Goodyear Eagle F1's on a 2.0 16v and it goes round corners like you wouldn't believe :D That's what the car is really about. neil 94 Flash Red 16v Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nick_Micouris 0 Posted September 11, 2003 IMHO the 2.0 16v is better - not as standard maybe but many of the 2.0's can be decatted and the 2.0 is tuneable to a VERY respectable standard. Plus you get the exterior and interior facelift on the late 2.0's Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scott 0 Posted September 11, 2003 Or Yokohama AVS Sport Tyres *:) - just had four fitted and WOW!!! *:) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
