2.0 16v VS 1.8 16v

[will.s 0]

looking to bye a new raddo and was wondering why the 2.0L is so much slower than the 1.8L.

anyone know?

 

cheers

[harryc 0]

Isnt it something to do with the Cat and having a different injection system? The 2.0 is a better base to tune from though.

[davidwort 0]

this has been covered many times on the forum,

essentially the 2L has more torque (about 10% to match the 10% increase in capacity) but is strangled at the top end by a flat inlet cam and a CAT.

the 1.8 is a fair bit lighter, lighter block, generally no ABS, smaller fuel tank and many other small additions to the later 2L cars.

there's not much in it in standard form, both cars will do just about 130mph but the 1.8 has slightly shorter gearing and revs to 7,200 versus 6,500 in the 2L, acceleration is much the same too, perhaps more fun in the 1.8 but not really any quicker, problem is there are good and bad examples of both around and in either form the good one will be far nicer to drive than the poor one.

[harryc 0]

I started out with the 1.8 kr block in my mk2 but ended up swapping in the 9a block with kr fuelling, twin inlet cams and raised rev limiter. With a few breathing mods it was good for 170 bhp and a nice increase in torque over the 1.8. As Davidwort said you sacrifice a little power for a little torque, mixing and matching the parts gives good gains.

[Swompy 0]

Basicly the 2lt 16v is a later version so has most of the late partsand the 1.8 is early version.

 

Power out put is preaty much the same except more torque from the 2lt. The top end of the 2lt does struggle but with a KR cam and timing and fueling adjustments, like I have had done to mine and revs very well at the top end 8) with a 4-branch and a de-cat as well the 2lt will be very quick.

 

When I had my car on the rollers it had 146 bhp and 140lbft which is 10bhp more than standard and all I had done was remove the air box snorkel, removed a exhuast silencer and replaced the back box. sinse then its had the KR cam and all the adjustments done and feels quicker

 

Oh and its for sale too :grin:

[Big'G' 0]

with a 4-branch and a de-cat as well the 2lt will be very quick.

 

When I had my car on the rollers it had 146 bhp and 140lbft which is 10bhp more than standard and all I had done was remove the air box snorkel, removed a exhuast silencer and replaced the back box. sinse then its had the KR cam and all the adjustments done and feels quicker

 

Oh and its for sale too :grin:

 

 

Ok my cat has had the Lambda sensor put into it, and wondered if it's meant to be there or somewhere else, what did you do with yours when you DE-CATed your 2L and did you run a straight through exhaust from the manifold to the back box ? I need to do this or similar to mine. How did it effect the emissions?

[Swompy 0]

with a 4-branch and a de-cat as well the 2lt will be very quick.

 

When I had my car on the rollers it had 146 bhp and 140lbft which is 10bhp more than standard and all I had done was remove the air box snorkel, removed a exhuast silencer and replaced the back box. sinse then its had the KR cam and all the adjustments done and feels quicker

 

Oh and its for sale too :grin:

 

 

Ok my cat has had the Lambda sensor put into it, and wondered if it's meant to be there or somewhere else, what did you do with yours when you DE-CATed your 2L and did you run a straight through exhaust from the manifold to the back box ? I need to do this or similar to mine. How did it effect the emissions?

 

Sorry mate you must of read that wrong, I havent had a decat done but Kempy has had it done on his 2lt 16v

[Big'G' 0]

Must have read it wrong mate sorry, thought that you had done that to your car....OOOOPS!

[Jonny777 0]

both cars will do just about 130mph but the 1.8 has slightly shorter gearing and revs to 7,200 versus 6,500 in the 2L, acceleration is much the same too, perhaps more fun in the 1.8 but not really any quicker, .

 

My 9a revs to just over 7k and that's standard....

[davidwort 0]

both cars will do just about 130mph but the 1.8 has slightly shorter gearing and revs to 7,200 versus 6,500 in the 2L, acceleration is much the same too, perhaps more fun in the 1.8 but not really any quicker, .

 

My 9a revs to just over 7k and that's standard....

 

dunno where your rev limiter sits, but the rev counter on the 2L red-lines at 6,500 and with a standard 9A inlet cam it'll run out of puff well before then, whereas a 1.8 will pull cleanly to the 7,200 red-line/rev limiter.

[SIMONG 0]

ive not had a 2l 16v but have had a 1.8 16v and looked into that a bit when i had it. cant give advice on real life performance as never had the 2l but on paper there both the same horse power but the 1.8 is lower insurance group than the 2.0l think it was two groups lower according to parkers but that was a few years back.

 

do the 2.0l have bigger top half inlet manifold like the golf?

[eugopnosaj 0]

ive not had a 2l 16v but have had a 1.8 16v and looked into that a bit when i had it. cant give advice on real life performance as never had the 2l but on paper there both the same horse power but the 1.8 is lower insurance group than the 2.0l think it was two groups lower according to parkers but that was a few years back.

 

do the 2.0l have bigger top half inlet manifold like the golf?

 

Nope the 9a inlet is 42mm whereas the KR is 50mm.

 

16v 1.8 is insurance group 15, 16v 2.0 group 17, 8v 2.0 group 16, G60 group 17 and VR group 18 http://www.parkers.co.uk/insurance/groups/by-model.aspx?model=1016

[davidwort 0]

...

do the 2.0l have bigger top half inlet manifold like the golf?

 

Nope the 9a inlet is 42mm whereas the KR is 50mm.

...

 

it actually goes by engine number and not code, KR engines changed to 42mm inlets around 1989 on a certain KR build number on all VW's ,but I've yet to see a Corrado on anything but a 42mm (from the factory) even the earliest 1.8's had 42mm inlets.

There's more to it than the inlet runner diameter too, the whole inlet system had minor revisions including the size of the chamber after the throttle body.

Unless you run a raised rev limiter, flowed head and aftermarket cams there's no point in the 50mm inlet anyway, it will sap torque from the low and mid range and will provide little or no top end gain.

[eugopnosaj 0]

...

do the 2.0l have bigger top half inlet manifold like the golf?

 

Nope the 9a inlet is 42mm whereas the KR is 50mm.

...

 

it actually goes by engine number and not code, KR engines changed to 42mm inlets around 1989 on a certain KR build number on all VW's ,but I've yet to see a Corrado on anything but a 42mm (from the factory) even the earliest 1.8's had 42mm inlets.

There's more to it than the inlet runner diameter too, the whole inlet system had minor revisions including the size of the chamber after the throttle body.

Unless you run a raised rev limiter, flowed head and aftermarket cams there's no point in the 50mm inlet anyway, it will sap torque from the low and mid range and will provide little or no top end gain.

 

Sorry, my mistake :notworthy: David, you're like a VW guru :lol: ....maybe i wont bother with the 50mm inlet then...makes my life a bit easier

[SIMONG 0]

i just though it was a common mod that was easily done and made the car a bit better in the intake said of things.

[davidwort 0]

i just though it was a common mod that was easily done and made the car a bit better in the intake said of things.

yeah, you will get that impression from speaking to a lot of people, but the reality is (like a lot of quick engine mods) you tend to lose in one area if you fit something to gain a bit in another.

The larger diameter intake may make a 'KR cammed' engine feel like it picks up/pulls better at the top end, but the reality is what you feel is the difference in lower torque at the bottom end and more of a transition to the top end, i.e. the torque plot becomes peakier.

If you see back to back torque plots from rolling roads it's pretty clear that the 42mm inlet engines have a bigger area under the curve and are therefore faster point to point as you use the whole rev range. Even highly tuned 16v engines tend to only develop the extra torque at very high revs which might be OK for a track car, but can be pretty unpleasant as a daily driver.

I had my 42mm inlet ported, rough polished and matched to the head and I've never had any complaints, when it was on the 1.8 or now on the 2L block. It pulls pretty close to the red line in 5th, so I can't see there's any restriction on the inlet side, if anything it's the cams that are the main limit on my engine, but then I still think the KR pair are a good compromise for torque and top end power on a 16v engine.

Sorry for the waffle, my pet subject as you might be able to tell :lol:

[harryc 0]

Do you have any back to back plots? Not argueing just always thought the top end gains out weighed the bottom end torque loss having always frequented the clubgti site. Like so many of these mods a few peoples opinions seem to turn into gospel without any real proof! I always had the 50mm inlet on my mk2 so cant compare but didnt look twice at the pile of 42mm mani's in the garage!

[davidwort 0]

Do you have any back to back plots? Not argueing just always thought the top end gains out weighed the bottom end torque loss having always frequented the clubgti site. Like so many of these mods a few peoples opinions seem to turn into gospel without any real proof! I always had the 50mm inlet on my mk2 so cant compare but didnt look twice at the pile of 42mm mani's in the garage!

 

There's plots on here somewhere of Jim's old standard 2L 16v, my 1.8 and 2L moddded and unmodded and a bunch of plots from GVK's old 16v (42 and 50mm inlet on the same engine) and other modified mk2's with 1.8 and 2L engines.

I must have had mine on different rolling roads six or seven times now and the peak torque is always between 145 and 153 lb/ft

 

the high power 16v's (180bhp plus) all make less torque (than cars on 42mm inlets and standard cams) until well into the 4-5000rpm plus territory, granted they use the bigger inlet but they only make bigger torque peaks at well beyond the point that more standard cars do.

You've really got to build a blueprinted very special engine to reach the flow limit of a 42mm inlet, and then you've got to drive the car at high rpms all the time to reap the benefit.

 

I remember GVK doing a back to back swap on his 2L with the 42 and 50mm inlets, he gained 1 or maybe 2 bhp peak but lost something like 4-5lb/ft, he went back to the 42mm.

[harryc 0]

Interesting, guess i'll stick my 42mm up for sale then!

[Jonny777 0]

both cars will do just about 130mph but the 1.8 has slightly shorter gearing and revs to 7,200 versus 6,500 in the 2L, acceleration is much the same too, perhaps more fun in the 1.8 but not really any quicker, .

 

My 9a revs to just over 7k and that's standard....

 

dunno where your rev limiter sits, but the rev counter on the 2L red-lines at 6,500 and with a standard 9A inlet cam it'll run out of puff well before then, whereas a 1.8 will pull cleanly to the 7,200 red-line/rev limiter.

 

All I know is before mine hits the limiter it goes over 7k and it hasn't run out of puff either. Or at least doesnt feel like it has!

[Erny 0]

Sounds like yours might not be all that standard then jonny,

 

I felt the loss in low down torque was very noticeable when switching between the 2 manifolds. Ied personally stick with the 42mm one,

 

Back to the original question, if I was to start all over again, ied buy a 1.8, Cheaper insureance, simpler engine management, and often cheaper to buy.(paid 500 for mine) and put a 2.0l block n head (abf IMO, nuff torque) in alittle further down the line, and run it all on the 1.8 management. The kr/1.8 management is more tunable, and doesn't require a cat for m.o.ts, stick a 4brqnch on, if I stuck with a kr or 9a ied use a exaust cam

as an inlet cam. But as above I prefer the abf block head and cams on kr management, shame it's a taller block tho

I wound up putting a vr in mine in the end. Insurance wound up cheaper.