Newbie - 16 valve performance?

[xrt_si 0]

Hello there, wondered if soemone could lend a hand with some advice. I am looking to buy a Corrado as a nice daily driver that I can have a little play with (i.e. Coilovers and rims etc...) but a little stuck over what model to get?

 

Considered VR6 but petrol cant be that good for what id be using it for (daily 7 mile drive to work through city), but id love the sound and the idea of having at least half decent performance.

 

Whilst the car will not be needed for performance (I have a very fast car to play in) I would like something that is respectable.

 

The G60s seem to fetch a lot of money and dont really interest me, so looking at the 1.8 or 2.0 16 valve versions. However, a litte research seems to indicate these versions are both a little sluggish to say the least?

 

What is the general opinion of these models?

Iam not expecting miracles as such just something nippy enough?

 

Thanks in advance!

[__Andy__ 0]

1.8 with a 2.0 bottem end on is a good option i hear...

[mrbeige 0]

I had a 2.0 16v with 1.8 16v inlet cam some DIY head work and the obvious fliter/exhaust. Nippy enough! Although with anything you get used to it....

[joby 0]

I can only speak for the 1.8 16v which goes well enough with a few simple mods ie Exhaust, filter, and tune up, as most of these cars are probably not running to the factory settings being old as they are, I used to take mine out with a spanner in hand and advance the timing untill it just started pinking and it flew to be fair :lol: With A decent suspension setup they still go well enough for a bit of fun, I use my S3 for some proper performance now so the corrado only gets used in the summer

[Ashun 0]

I have a 2.0 16v , not a bad one by the sounds of it mines quite fast . I would get one as there much cheepness and you don't have to rush to buy it I find the VR6's sell fast.

 

change the fuel filter when you get it mine was down on power when i got it , got that changed and it is much better

 

Ash

[was8v 0]

VR6's aren't as bad as you may think on fuel, 30 round town and 40+ on the motorway. Admittedly it drops a bit when pressing on.....

[Ashun 0]

I have a 2.0 16v , not a bad one by the sounds of it mines quite fast . I would get one as there much cheepness and you don't have to rush to buy it I find the VR6's sell fast.

 

change the fuel filter when you get it mine was down on power when i got it , got that changed and it is much better

 

Ash

[VR6C 0]

VR6's aren't as bad as you may think on fuel, 30 round town and 40+ on the motorway. Admittedly it drops a bit when pressing on.....

 

:shock: 30 round town - you sure?

[tonedef 8]

VR6's aren't as bad as you may think on fuel, 30 round town and 40+ on the motorway. Admittedly it drops a bit when pressing on.....

How much :shock: I see around 23 as average normal use around town, middle 30s max if I'm driving like an old lady on the motorway :lol:

 

That said, you're hardly going to see a deal better from a valver. At the end of the day, plus or minus a few mpg is not what you should consider as the main criteria when choosing a Corrado, normal running costs will make up the biggest part of running any older car. Corrados are generally no better and no worse than anything of a similar vintage, it's how more down to the car's history and in the end how lucky/unlucky you are.

[tonytiger 0]

VR6's aren't as bad as you may think on fuel, 30 round town and 40+ on the motorway. Admittedly it drops a bit when pressing on.....

 

You'll only see figures that good if you reset the MFA part way through the journey, or perhaps if your journey is mostly down-hill!

 

Those figures just aren't possible - with an 80 mile commute each day, believe me, I've tried!

 

Although I love my vr, if I were choosing again I'd probably look at a 16v (or perhaps even a very late, low mileage 8v - okay they're slow but must be somewhat cheaper to run). Just depends what you want from the car.

[was8v 0]

You'll only see figures that good if you reset the MFA part way through the journey, or perhaps if your journey is mostly down-hill!

Those figures just aren't possible - with an 80 mile commute each day, believe me, I've tried!

 

hummm that is reading from my MFA without resetting it - I suppose my drive to work isn't really "round town" as there is no stop-start. An indicated 40+ is easy on the motorway if you stick to 65-70!!

[ali moore 0]

You'll only see figures that good if you reset the MFA part way through the journey, or perhaps if your journey is mostly down-hill!

Those figures just aren't possible - with an 80 mile commute each day, believe me, I've tried!

 

hummm that is reading from my MFA without resetting it - I suppose my drive to work isn't really "round town" as there is no stop-start. An indicated 40+ is easy on the motorway if you stick to 65-70!!

yer i get 30 round town in the vr easy, took it to france got upto 42, :)

[ali moore 0]

You'll only see figures that good if you reset the MFA part way through the journey, or perhaps if your journey is mostly down-hill!

Those figures just aren't possible - with an 80 mile commute each day, believe me, I've tried!

 

hummm that is reading from my MFA without resetting it - I suppose my drive to work isn't really "round town" as there is no stop-start. An indicated 40+ is easy on the motorway if you stick to 65-70!!

[Jim 1]

If you're seriously considering a 2.0 16v only based on fuel consumption concerns of the VR6, i'd forget about it and get the VR6.

 

In 2006 when a group of us drove some Corrado's to Germany and back, my 2.0 16v consistently averaged a few MPG less than the VR6's did. The valver just isn't that economical and is easily unbalanced by dead or dying sensors such is the nature of its fuel injection system.

 

Otherwise the 2.0 16v isn't a bad motor - put a good exhaust on and a good quality panel filter, it makes the right sort of noises (though admittedly doesn't compete with the VR6 soundtrack wise), and when it is running well it is a very smooth engine.. even my motor with nearly 182,000 purrs along nicely at cruising speeds and is relatively gutsy at low revs.

 

For reference the best economy i've ever seen is 33MPG on a long motorway run. Typically I see high 20's on a modest drive without much stopping / starting. In gridlock i've seen 3.1MPG (yeuch) and my MFA2 reckons my average doing an 8 mile commute every day is approx 24.1MPG. I do have the KR cam on mine, but lots of new sensors and pipework..

[davidwort 0]

You'll only see figures that good if you reset the MFA part way through the journey, or perhaps if your journey is mostly down-hill!

Those figures just aren't possible - with an 80 mile commute each day, believe me, I've tried!

 

hummm that is reading from my MFA without resetting it - I suppose my drive to work isn't really "round town" as there is no stop-start. An indicated 40+ is easy on the motorway if you stick to 65-70!!

 

Bear in mind that the speedo is nearly always 5-10% overreading so I'd imagine this inflates the MFA values.

It doesn't seem to make much difference whether you have the old mechanical K-jet injection system using the manifold pressure to work out fuel consumption or a modern ECU that can better calculate actual fuel use, my mk4 Golf also consistently produces long range mpg figures 2-3 mpg higher than the actual use (filling the tank brim to brim) much the same as my old Corrado does.

The 16v is also hampered by having the shortest gearing of all the Corrados.

 

BTW, some of this posting business is going a bit Pete Tong?

[vornwend 0]

Probably the only really reliable way to check your MPG is to reset the oddometer when you fill up and then wait until you fill up again and then do the maths :?

 

I had a 16 valver for 8 years and was quite happy with the performance until I realised the difference a VR6 makes, kinda makes you forget how much petrol you're burning :D

[xrt_si 0]

Ummm certainly food for thought.

 

Thanks guys, just makes me think VR6 could be better option :lol:

Depends if the MPG isnt great on the 16v versions either?

 

 

Think i might have a test drive of the two models. IS there much difference in the 1.8 and 2.0 16v models?

 

Thanks again!

[lesarcsneil 0]

I have a completely standard 2.0 16v and get the following sort of MPG figures:

13 mile commute to work @ 70mph, not much stop/start 32mpg winter 36mpg summer

Long motorway run @ 80mph 33mpg.

Long motoway run @70mph driving gently 38-42mpg.

Cross country hoonage 28-30mpg.

 

My 2.0 16v seems to like optimax/V-Power which can give you a couple more mpg. I generally drive with a view to increasing fuel economy, lifting off and using engine braking for roundabouts/traffic lights etc.

 

I suppose it depends what you are after out of a car. A 16v with Koni/H&R suspension handles amazingly well and is certainly quick enough in the real world. It's only as quick as the missus' mk4 TDi 130 in a straight line though.

 

Neil

 

94 Flash Red 16v

[Jim 1]

Crikey. Clearly the KR cam modificaion screws with the fuel economy in a much bigger way than I realised!

 

That said I disconnected my cold start injector yesterday and found the car to be returning way higher than normal MPG figures and being a far smoother drive... maybe its been duff for a while and skewing my values.

[Ashun 0]

i get 30 mpg out of my 2.016v 30 mile road .

 

avg on mfa is 27.2 mpg over 2 years

 

Ash

[vagingit.co.uk 0]

Ive just bought a 1.8 16v, and to be fair, its not slow, but in erms of balls out performance, its not that quick either. Rev it and she flies along, but for gentle driing, it can feel like its hlding back, but its how you drive them, you have to rev them to get the best out of them. Im not looking back though, fantastic car!

 

on the mpg note, I bought the car in birmingham, and drove it 200 miles home to kent, and averaged just under 40mpg all the way home at about 70 mph.

around town, I getting 31/32 mpg. this is al assuming my mfa is fairly accurate.

 

my brothers vr6 highline golf averages about 20mpg around town

[ali moore 0]

stay away from the golf, the VR's the way to go :D

[Fanjita 1]

I commute daily in my VR and my MFA reads about 25mpg.

 

i roughly spend 20 quid a week on fuel, its not bad at all, and i travel 6-7 miles through a city!!

[Veearrhsix 0]

I commute daily in my VR and my MFA reads about 25mpg.

 

i roughly spend 20 quid a week on fuel, its not bad at all, and i travel 6-7 miles through a city!!

I'm spending more than that. Must be something wrong with mine.

[Skimask 0]

I have a 1.8 16 valve and a VR6

On the same journey in a week the valver uses £30 fuel and the VR uses £50.

That's about the difference in fuel.

The performance is slightly different. Yes the VR is quicker - though not a lot of difference up to 60. Once beyond 60 the VR comes in to its own.

For instance accelarating down a slip road until the end - on a VR it will reach 115- 120 On the valver It will reach 110.

 

Handling is another issue - the valver is always much better - Some people on here go on about the VR having a wider track to compensate for the weight on the engine on the front wheels - nevertheless the 16v is so much better.

 

The VR wins on Engine noise - It is brilliant!