Just driven my bros 8vgolf, and my 16v is boring compared

[bubcuss 0]

As title says just driven my bros 8vgolf and its so much more fun to drive than my 16v!! more low down torque but horible to drive!

I have been thinkin of doing the 2l bottom end conversion on my c and i was wondering if you realy can feel the difference? more low down torque? also is a 2l gearbox the same ratio as a 1.8? Thanks for any help?

[flusted 0]

yes you can feel the difference but your 16v should have same or more torque low down it just feels less as you get more at 4k.

Maybe worth getting your valver tuned up?

[Goldie 2]

The Golf is a totally different machine and i think the fact that its light means it does feel quicker and more nimble on its feet than the Corrado..

[Supercharged 2]

Yeah, I'm afraid thats just the way it is... the 16V is a great proven engine but the C is too heavy so from a MK2 GTi background you really need to go G60 or VR6...

[Jim 1]

Or get your 16v tweaked a bit!

 

You can get the 1.8 16v tweaked up with a simple rolling road tune up - heard about people getting pretty good power increases from that alone!

[Mystic Rado 0]

Yeah, I'd agree with some of the above, I run a Mk2 GTi 8-valve with a TSR head, cams, manifold, chip and a Jetex etc as a daily and it's quick as, expecially now I've replaced the shagged breather pipe with a hole in it :) I reckon there are two things going on, one is that the Corrado is just a more cultured, smoother, quieter ride, so it doesn't feel as fast - at 90mph my VR feels like it's pootling, in the GiT you can barely hear the stereo, viz, the Golf feels faster even at the same speed. Second, low down the Golf actually is faster cos it's lighter so it accelerates quicker than a Corrado.

 

Upping a 1.8 valver to 2 litres is meant to make a big difference to low down response, have a look on the Club GTi forum if you don't find everything your need to know here, it's a common conversion on the Mark 2.

 

You're never going to make your Corrado feel like a Golf though, it's always going to weigh more and be a more sophisticated ride, when VW made the Golf heavier they came up with the Mark 3, even with a 2.0 8v in, it's a slug, which tells you everything you need to know really.

 

I do stil keep wondering about sticking my GTi's top-end on an 8-valve 'rado engine though, but I think I might end up with the worst of both worlds :?

[VeeDub Geezer 0]

also is a 2l gearbox the same ratio as a 1.8? Thanks for any help?

 

the 2.0 got longer ratio's as it is actually a Passat 'box iirc

[bubcuss 0]

Thanks for all the responces lads theres some good info in there, i have had my c tuned at stealth to 152bhp but it still feels slower until 4k!! Thats why im thinking 2l bottom end? Also will the 2l gearbox fit on the 1.8? and is it worth doing a swap? more aceleration?

[flusted 0]

the 1.8 box has the shortest raios so should make for better acceleration i think?

[boost monkey 0]

Thanks for all the responces lads theres some good info in there, i have had my c tuned at stealth to 152bhp but it still feels slower until 4k!! Thats why im thinking 2l bottom end? Also will the 2l gearbox fit on the 1.8? and is it worth doing a swap? more aceleration?

 

less acceleration, the gears are longer, so it would feel slower.

 

Of course it will feel slower until 4k, that's when a KR comes on cam. If you want a wall of torque, get a G60 or a VR6.

 

can't be arsed to go into proper engineering mode, sposed to be in labs in an hour...ta ta!

[Yandards 0]

As already mentioned a 16v power plant will usually produce more torque that an 8v unit - its just feels slower because of the way the valvers deliver their peak power.

 

I did have until recently an 8v GTi mk 2, it is a totally different driving experience, the mk 2 is very very noisy compared to a Corrado and the handling is very different. The mk 2 feels nibler through the corners to an extent but at the same time not as well planted.

 

The other thing to note is that the valvers have a very short box compared to 8v engine and that a Golf 16v has a smaller flywheel than a Corrado (212mm instead of 228mm) The flywheel on a KR on a corrado is a lot lot heavier so it takes more to get it going.

 

The valvers are quick, it just does not always feel like it.

[rado-steve 0]

Aye, It's funny but 16V's actually have more torque than 8V's it's just further up the rev range!

 

Watching an 8v Mk2 and a 16V Mk2 on a Drag Strip is interesting, they are basically neck and neck, till the valver comes on cam and then pulls away by quite a bit!

[skinnyman9000 0]

doesnt the 16v golf and 16v rado weight the same?

 

The golf was built as a fun town car, the rado as a motorway cruiser. I think anyway

[bubcuss 0]

Theres some good stuff hear!! To end it all the c is worth it for looks and driving position alone!!!!!!! Agreed???? Cheers lads

[Goldie 2]

doesnt the 16v golf and 16v rado weight the same?

 

The golf was built as a fun town car, the rado as a motorway cruiser. I think anyway

 

The golf is definitely the lighter..

 

Im comparing 16v Golf to the VR corrado but the golf is a lovely winding road, responsive car and the VR is a grunty, nose of the car up under acceleration machine, both lovely but in different ways.. I think the fact that im not so anal about my Golf means i dont worry about it and can enjoy it more..

[CrazyDave 0]

It's all power and weight....

 

Mk2 Golf 8v 936kg - 112hp

MK2 Golf 16v 1010kg - 139hp

 

Corrado 1.8 16v 1100kg - 136hp

 

Corrado VR6 1240kg! - 190hp

 

The gearing is also a lot longer on the 16v C. But I know which one I'd rather do a 3-400 mile trip in :)

[boost monkey 0]

Don't you mean shorter? or am i getting confused? :?

[Yandards 0]

It's all power and weight....

 

Mk2 Golf 8v 936kg - 112hp

MK2 Golf 16v 1010kg - 139hp

 

Corrado 1.8 16v 1100kg - 136hp

 

Corrado VR6 1240kg! - 190hp

 

The gearing is also a lot longer on the 16v C. But I know which one I'd rather do a 3-400 mile trip in :)

 

Yes it is and then you chuck in gearbox ratios too, both valvers are very similar although the Corrado has a shorter 1st when compared with the mk 2.

 

The reason the Corrado valver has less power than the Golf is because of the larger diameter flywheel needed to drive the 02A transmission instead of the Golfs 02.

 

As for 8v vs 16v performance an interesting article can be found here: here (Quite indepth article but there is a direct comparison between an engine with and 8v head fitted then a 16v on a rolling road session.

 

Pasted below for lazy people is the section on the 8v vs 16v bit. Please note that whilst this deals with 4 cylinder engines that same can be applied to the 12v head of VR6 vs a 24v one.

Article copied from http://www.billzilla.org/2v4vpage2.htm all credits to original author

 

Some real-world figures ...

This is an extract from a friend of mine, Dave Andrews, about this very subject. He's what he had to say about some dyno runs that he did -

"First off I agree with most of what Bill has said, 4 valve engines simply allow better cylinder filling at all RPM, this translates to improved BMEP and therefore increased torque and BHP throughout the rev range. I would say that a 4 valve engine in aspirated form, developed properly will make about 90ft/lb per litre tops and can sustain most of this for around 50-55% of its rev range, an 8 valve engine developed properly will make no more than 82ft/lb per litre and can sustain most this for no more than 40-45% of its power band. This means that a stonking 4 valve engine will be far more flexible and have a wider torque envelope that an 8 valve.. end of story, where you choose to make that torque is up to you.

Effective cylinder filling at high RPM (and therefore big BHP) comes at a price on an 8 valve engine, the price is wild cams and lots of overlap, these destroy low down torque. 16 valve engines have inherently better cylinder filling because of increased valve curtain area, to extract greater power requires less cam duration and less overlap than with an 8 valve, this allows better retention of the engines low down torque characteristics.

I've run my current engine in 8 valve and 16 valve form, both times running relatively enormous cams (8v 326deg, 16v 302deg) with ultra big valve heads and 48 webers, the 16 valve version produces 70BHP more and comes on cam 1500RPM earlier, at 2500RPM the 16 valve has *twice* the torque of the 8 valve.

Peak torque on the 8 valve was 155ft/lb, on the 16 valve 179ft/lb. From 3500 to 8300 I have over 85% of maximum torque on the 16 valve, on the 8 valve torque hits 85% of maximum at 4400 and drops below again at around 7200. Thats why I changed to 16 valve..

Here is a real example from a big rolling road day at Walkers workshop on Sunday 15th, two engines, one an 8 Valve 'Kent' Crossflow, 1780cc, fully worked big valve head, 296 degree cam 40 Webers and 4->1 exhaust, the other a 16V Rover K series 1788cc, standard head, standard plenum, 268 degree cams, 4-2-1 exhaust.

Both engines made around 146BHP (xflow 145, K series 147)

The following figures are torque in ft/lbs

 

RPM 8v 16v

1500 45 56

2000 68 91

2500 101 130

3000 112 133

3500 112 129

4000 111 132

4500 126 140

5000 129 136

5500 130 134

6000 126 126

6500 112 118

7000 99 108

 

Speaks for itself... at 1500 RPM the 16v has 24% more torque, at 2500 the 16v has 29% more torque, at 4000 18% more. These are real life engines, no theory here, in order to match the 16 valves output the 8 valve has to use a lot more cam and a big valve head fully reworked. This has worsened its low down torque. The output from the 8 valve is considered very good for a road engine too.

A naturally aspirated 1788 K series 16 valve engine fully reworked (by me) was on the dyno today at Walkers Workshop and made 251BHP and 163ft/lb of torque (90ft/lb per litre). See it in CCC magazine next month, show me an 8 valve aspirated 1800cc engine with those sort of power and torque figures and I'll show you my testicles on a silver salver.

Dave"

[skinnyman9000 0]

He reworked an NA KR lump to 251bhp?!?!?!

[8vtornado 0]

no Rover K series engine, pretty well known for good power to weight ratio, as well as AWFUL head gaskets and bolts (about a foot long) but id still only believe 250bhp wen i see it!!!

[CrazyDave 0]

Don't you mean shorter? or am i getting confused? :?

 

I mean as in higher top speed needs longer gearing (assuming the engines max speed is the same... which it isn't cos the valver will rev a bit more), the valver C is booked at 130ish mph compared to 112 for the Golf.

[boost monkey 0]

no Rover K series engine, pretty well known for good power to weight ratio, as well as AWFUL head gaskets and bolts (about a foot long) but id still only believe 250bhp wen i see it!!!

 

I'd guess that 251 is a typo and should be 215hp, still impressive though!

 

Yeah, they tried a new polymer in the head gaskets and they didn't work too good, and the head bolts go through the WHOLE block and form the main bearing bolts too! :shock:

 

they work quite good though, I did a report on them in an engine study last year for Materials.

[CrazyDave 0]

As I understood it the K-series head gasket problem is mainly down to the tolerance between the tops of the liners and the surface of the block, getting the dimension correct is the key to it sealing correctly. The machining tolerance just wasn't tight enough.

 

The other cause of early failure is water leaking un-noticed from the inlet mainfold heated waterways. Unless you actually keep checking the water level, the o-ring seal fails and due to it location isn't easy to spot. That combined with a very minimal water system, leads to overheating and the liners dropping down into the block.

 

Still a great engine, makes really good power and the all alloy construction makes for great power to weight figures. All alloy Toyota for me though, very light and powerfull :)

[davidwort 0]

I'm not so sure of a few of these bits of info guys,

 

the 16v golf mk2 (KR) and 1.8 (KR) corrado have very similar gearing and an almost identical top speed, about 129 and 131 respectively, the corrado with a slightly higher top speed as it's more aerodynamic.

 

as for the power output, surely an engine has the same peak power regardless of the flywheel you bolt to it, the flywheel is just an energy store after all?, you don't lose power in the flywheel, there's no frictional losses.

 

On the K-series engines I'd always understood the problem with headgaskets was mainly due to the fact that the efficient design of the engine meant a small coolant capacity, so as soon as you get a bit of water loss the engine can overheat very quickly as there's little margin for error (compared to the 6.5 litres of a VW 16v) so they often blow their gaskets rather than just overheating (edit: sorry Dave ,just re-read your comment about the minimal water system)

 

I also really don't buy this idea that the 16v has more low down torque than the 8v (1.8 engines) I've had several and the 8v's in different cars (Passats and audis too), they were all more punchy low down, if anything they are probably about the same but the gearing and cams on the 8v's tend to make them better at lower revs even accounting for the 16v's 4000rpm pickup which makes them 'feel' sluggish before they come on cam.

 

But as Dave says, with the C and MK2 it's really all down to weight, when it came out the Corrado was nearly as heavy as a passat saloon.

[boost monkey 0]

From what i've found, the Golf is anything up to 150kg lighter than the Corrado which I can believe.

 

With regards to power or torque curves, the only difference i've seen is when one engine has the 50mm inlet and the other has the 42(?) in which case the 50 sneaks a tiny bit higher at top end. Apart from that, the graphs seem to be interchangeable for different KR platforms.

 

Saying that, My corrado came with a 42mm inlet engine but the replacement I bought from Volksmine is a 50mm inlet engine...hmm.