Hello and a question.....

[Jimothy 0]

Just making my presence known...

 

Horney from on here has got me lusting over a corrado again, and i have been looking round the site a lot but cant really find the answer to my question.

 

I'm looking at getting a non G60 or VR rado, and definately not an 8v.

 

Looking at the knowledge base wiki, it has very different times for the 1.8 16v and the 2.0 16v.

 

Does anyone know the actual 0-60 of the 1.8 16v, cos i cant believe the time on the wiki......

 

 

Hello and thanks

 

Jim

[mattnorgrove 0]

Don't know the exact timing 0-60 for the 1.8 16v, but it IS quicker than the 2.0 16v, (both in standard form obviously) due to different gear ratios.

 

The 1.8 will hit 60 in 2nd unlike the 2.0 hence the quicker time.

 

HTH

 

And welcome!

[The_Dude 0]

There is also the fact that the cat on the 2.0 is more restrictive, whereas the 1.8 doesn't have one.

[Walesy 0]

Why not an 8v mate? (or G60?)

[swiftkid 1]

my 1989 1.8 16v had a cat. the 2 litre has more restrictive cams than the 1.8 but if you swap the cams from the KR (1.8 16v) it gives it alot more power. my 1.8 valver did 0-60 in around 8 seconds depending on how i was driving if my memory serves me correctly.

 

i wouldnt worry too much about 0-60 times because it depends on the pickup of speed on the car, for eg a turbo may have a slower 0-60 than a n/a due to turbo lag, doesnt mean the turbo car is slower, id look at torque curve compared with weight and bhp if your looking for performance. hope that makes sense anyway...

[Jimothy 0]

Yeah cool guys, i know it not really about 0-60 cos most of the time your driving its mid range that counts.

 

8v only has 115 bhp, if im right. the mk3 gti was slow, so i cant imagine the heavier corrado living up to its looks.

and not the g60 cos i cant find any good ones cheap, and its just that bit extra in insurance, which i can afford, but combined with paying more for the car isnt ideal at this moment in time. Something to upgrade to perhaps.

 

would it be best to get a 2.0 16v and put cams in it, as there is limited easy tuning for the 1.8 16v?

[Sonicriot13 0]

I think the main benefit to getting the 2.0 is that it is post facelift. Buy one of those and put an ABF in it. :wink:

[Jimothy 0]

What are the facelift differences?

 

Comparing the two photos of my dads old J plate G60 with his VR6 Storm and i can see the headlights are different... what else? interior?

[vwdeviant 0]

8v actually quicker off the line than the 16v as has more Torques...

 

My 2.0 again quicker off the line than a KR, because of torques but still has to be "booted" to get going...

 

If you're driving mostly in traffic, Beware going the 2.0/KR cam route as it shifts the power up the rev range...

[Sonicriot13 0]

The interior in the facelift is a lot like a mk3 golf. It is a bit nicer if I'm honest. Also you get a bulge in the bonnet that some people find irresistible. There are probably a few other things but they escape me at the moment.

[The_Dude 0]

8v actually quicker off the line than the 16v as has more Torques...

 

You're not on Top Gear, please don't talk like a retard. We all understand what torque is on here.

 

 

What are the facelift differences?

 

Comparing the two photos of my dads old J plate G60 with his VR6 Storm and i can see the headlights are different... what else? interior?

 

Heater controls, dash stalks, bonnet, wings and bumper were all changed slighty.

[Jimothy 0]

Cool, thanks for the info guys, helps a lot.

 

J

[chubbybrown 0]

surprised your 1989 had a cat.

The G60 92 may have been a post facelift model as both were around at that time.

pre -_- bonnet

post -^- bonnet

poverty spec valvers shouldnt be over looked as they have nothing on them to go wrong.

I would dismiss an 8valve truck either.

 

how often do you go over 4,000 rpm?

 

We hardly do.....

 

so probably should have looked at an 8v rather than reading they are slow when they aint!

 

chubbz

[Walesy 0]

Aye, given the choice between an 8v and a 16v i'd go for an 8v every time (having owned a few of each!)

[krnau 0]

if there were any 8v here in Spain, I would have bought one. As chubby brown says, how often do you go higher than 4K rpm?

 

well, I do it several times a day :lol: but an 8v is not slow at all. and it is equipped (if I am not wrong) with electrical injection, which in case of malfunction is easier to find a mechanic who can repair it than finding some K-Jetronic expert.... at least here in Spain...

[mattnorgrove 0]

Heater controls, dash stalks, bonnet, wings and bumper were all changed slighty.

 

Also side trims around bottom sides of front seats were added, door cards changed slightly, as did door pockets.

 

Also the later cars did away with the analogue odometer for the digital one. And were fitted with the larger 15 gallon fuel tank...

[The_Dude 0]

and went from 4 stud hubs to 5 stud....or was that just the VR?

[krnau 0]

and went from 4 stud hubs to 5 stud....or was that just the VR?

just vr

[swiftkid 1]

the corrado is lighter than the mk3 golf, at least im pretty sure it is. the mk3 golfs weigh tonnes and in my opinion are alot slower than the rado. my 1.8 16v rado easily kept up with an abf 2l 16v mk3 golf, both pretty much standard.

 

i would advise going 2l 16v and doing the cam swap as its an easy modification and i think (someone please correct me if im wrong) they have around 160bhp after that mod depending on the condition of the engine. although i've always wanted to drive a g60 id maybe just test drive to see what you think because you can never tell what a car is like from letters and numbers, unless it says 900bhp in which case you have a pretty good idea.

[Guest]

i have a 8v corrado and i have raced a 8v gti and went past him no bother and have kept up with a 1.8 16v corrado aswell. i wouldnt diss them its a good motor and it aint too bad on the fuel either ive just bought a bmw 318is and the corrado is so much faster (the bmw has more power but weights as much as the moon but who can resist rwd shenanigans)

[Toad 0]

8v actually quicker off the line than the 16v as has more Torques...

 

I've heard that before in reference to 8v and 16v golfs, I also understand that it's crap. The 16v is supposed to produce more torque right through the rev range than the 8v. The difference is probably down to gearing, and the feeling of the torque curve being prominent at the bottom of the rev range.

 

Could be wrong though. Anyone got a couple of charts?

 

Not knocking the 8v though I think they're awesome cars and that you don't need power to enjoy the corrado.

 

Corradude :lol: I agree completely.

[The_Dude 0]

Yup, it drives me up the wall. I was a bit blunt tho, :nono: :lol:

 

I think the thing is they could hardly bring out an updated version that went slower, so the 2.0 has got to be able to at least keep up.

[horney 0]

Yeah 8v has less torque all the way through the rev range but the 16v feels like it's less because of the torque spike when it comes on cam.

 

My 2.0 16v is running KR cams and dicks all over any Standard MKII or MKIII GTI. It's also a fair bit quicker than my mates 2.0 Fiesta ST and another mates heavily modified 2.0 8v MKII Golf. I've done a traffic light GP with a standard MKIII VR6 and we were level pegging up to about 70 and then he pulled away.

 

Nick

[horney 0]

Oh and Hi James, see you wednesday at No-Rice?

 

Nick

[horney 0]

As chubby brown says, how often do you go higher than 4K rpm?

 

Once the oil temp has hit 85 then every gear except 5th. Just me then? Humm probably explains my oil leak!

 

Nick