What Engine to replace the VR6 ???????

[swindon-corrado 0]

My engine I'm sure is going to need rebuilding within the next year. Without any stupid comments like 'do a V8 job on it" can someone recommend the best route to take?

 

I love the VR6 engine but that engine is such a pain in the ass with burning oil, scoring of bores, cost of maintenance/rebuild !

 

what I want is a nice smooth motor that is going to last me for years to come with the right servicing etc..

 

Is it really worth rebuilding the VR6 engine because 'it sounds nice' or is it time to think practical and swap it with an alternative VW engine that is going to deliver the same sort of grunt?

 

Any suggestions as I am trying to estimate how much cash I am going to need to put by for this.

 

Thanks people !

[gradeAfailure 0]

I suspect the general consensus will be to go 2.8 24V, unless you're feeling flush and can afford an R32 lump!

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Defo 24V but it's early days yet to tell whether they also suffer with chain and bore wear issues.

[swindon-corrado 0]

What is the spec on the 24V lump? Torque/bhp/weight.. ? And what sort of a job is it to swap ??

[dr_mat 0]

Are you really worried about having to rebuild it again? I mean, if you rebuild or fit a young 24v engine you won't have to touch it for 100k miles.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

2.8 - about 160 kilos in weight, power - 204hp, torque 199lb/ft (but at a much lower rpm than the 12V's peak torque).

 

3.2 - Early ones were 236hp with about 235lb/ft. Later ones with the better revised ECU give 250hp, give or take a few. Similar weight I think.

 

As for fitting, Mr Renshaw, Coxylaad & PhatVR6 are your boys for advice there....plus there are a whole load of threads on it.

[iow_corrado_g60 0]

or you could go v5 thats been done!

[Nick 0]

Audi TT engine? The 225 version?

[bcstudent 0]

A four-cylinder engine swap is going to be a pain in the arse. The 2.8 24v makes perfect sense.

[Stan 24v 0]

24v is the way forward. Great power and refinement, and still as good as the original 12v version too. I paid less than £3k for my conversion, including the engine and parts.

[Rpmayne 0]

At this rate there's not going to be any standard ones left.. Should mean the rare standard ones should fetch more money eventually. :)

 

If you got a 12v rebuilt and looked after it properly, surely it should last ok. There are some high mileage ones around so they must be capable. Got to make sure the second hand one you're putting in is in very good shape, probably more to fix that if it goes wrong.

[swindon-corrado 0]

I am in agreemnent with Rpmayne on that it would probably be better to keep the original lump in it as it will be worth more in the long run.. The problem is reboring the 2.9..

 

I suppose the way to go is 2.8 rebored to 2.9 with new pistons etc which will cost a fortune?

 

or

 

3.0 the current 2.9 engine and buy new pistons etc which will cost a fortune..

 

Or recon 2.9 ?? If there are any good companies out there that will do these on the shelf ??

[Stan 24v 0]

It would have cost me just over £2k to get mine rebored and new pistons etc. I opted to pay a little bit extra, and I mean a little bit, and get 12 more valves ;) No regrets!!

 

As has been said before by people, the only reason for keeping a 12v would be if you actually loved the engine, or you want to keep it standard. Yes it will go forever if looked after properly, but it will still be old and not as refined/economical/powerful etc.

 

I love the 12v engine, but 24v is the way it should have been made in the first place, and apparently thats also what VWs plans had on them!! :shock:

[Rpmayne 0]

Does the extra valves not get back to a similar argument as the old 8v vs 16v mk2 golfs? Greater top end bhp at the expense of reduced low down torque etc on the 16v?

[gradeAfailure 0]

IIRC from the torque plots of Jay Renshaw's 24V at the last Stealth RR day, the 24V makes more torque than the 12V, and at lower revs too...

[dazzyvr6 0]

I am in agreemnent with Rpmayne on that it would probably be better to keep the original lump in it as it will be worth more in the long run.. The problem is reboring the 2.9..

 

I suppose the way to go is 2.8 rebored to 2.9 with new pistons etc which will cost a fortune?

 

or

 

3.0 the current 2.9 engine and buy new pistons etc which will cost a fortune..

 

Or recon 2.9 ?? If there are any good companies out there that will do these on the shelf ??

 

you can get 3.0 pistons from eip for £600,if you source all the parts yourself and get someone on here to rebuild it for you then it wont cost tooo much

[double-6s 0]

Does the extra valves not get back to a similar argument as the old 8v vs 16v mk2 golfs? Greater top end bhp at the expense of reduced low down torque etc on the 16v?

 

but that turned out not to be true. did you not see that plot of the 8v and 16v golfs?

at no point in the rev range does the 16v make less torque or power than the 8v. its a myth.

i guess it just feels that way cos of the way the 16v comes on cam more obviously.

[dr_mat 0]

Well the 24v vr6 manages that by having variable valve stuff...

[CoxyLaad 0]

The 24v absolutely lunches the 12v for low down torque. It has so many extras on the engine to beef this up. VVT, variable inlet manifold, better breathing with the 24v head.

When you get a look at it the 24v head is a work of art.

[Rpmayne 0]

Surprised about the 8v 16v torque, have had both and convinced the 8v was better off the mark. Probably the feel of the cams as you say though.

 

Sounds like a win win then, if I had a go in one I'd probably kick myself for not going down that route. Fair play to those who have done it. Changing the wiring loom, engine mount positions etc etc still scares me though.

[CoxyLaad 0]

you dont have to change teh engine mountings, its only necessary if you are going 4wd with the 02m box, and even then its not essential (just better)

[swindon-corrado 0]

So the way to go obviously is get the 2.8 24v VR6 engine. I'll need the Engine loom to marry up to my existing loom ?? ECU ?

 

Then stick the std VR6 in the garage to rebuild at a later date when no one else has a std VR6 to show ;)

 

What should I be paying for the 24V ??

[double-6s 0]

Surprised about the 8v 16v torque, have had both and convinced the 8v was better off the mark. Probably the feel of the cams as you say though.

 

could be gearing as well?

not sure if the 8v and 16v had the same gear ratios?

[Rpmayne 0]

Yer, I thought the gearing was different aswell. There was a similar thread on this recently about putting 8v boxes onto 16v's for quicker acceleration. Didn't end up finding out what the differences were. http://the-corrado.net/.archive/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38457&highlight=

[Ice White Socks 0]

wouldn't resale value be in issue here? I would have thought there would have been much more interest in an 'original' rebuilt 2.9VR, rather than an 24v transplant which might be a more risky option (even tho I 'know' which is the better engine).

 

I have this dilemma on my VR and whether or not to supercharge- even tho a well sorted supercharged VR would be fookin rocket ship- it might put a lot of 'non-enthusiast' people of buying it.