2.0 8v Vs 2.9 VR6

[G-SEXY 0]

Okay to warn you I'm in a bad mood and to top it off I have just read another forum person bad mouthing the 2.0 8v C. :mad:

Now my point is the Corrado is not the fastest car in the world and that goes for ALL models unless you spend loads of dosh modding them (believe me I know fast - I tried racing an M5 in my supped up G60 and have never been so embarrrased :oops: now that thing is FAST!!!)

Anyway the Corrado only really has 3 things going for it thats: Looks, Drive/Handling and Build quality (the damn thing is solid); now these do not change from 2.0 to 2.9 so why all the bitc**ing about the 8v. In fact I have had 3 C's to date and the 96 8v I have now is just as good as the VR and G60 looks,handling and build wise just a tad slower BUT its fantastic on fuel I can get >40mpg on motorways. So seeing as were heading for £1 per litre fuel I thinks its the best all round.

So if you want fast go for an M5 or similar but if you have the Coraddo bug and like that unique look dont rule out the 8v its a good buy.

[dr_mat 0]

Hoping to stir up some flames here, but I'd say the VR6 is pretty quick, particularly when you consider what was around, in it's price bracket, at the time.

It's still fast now, competing with the current crop of hot hatches without too many troubles. (But that's getting harder with the modern obsession with turbos..)

BUT I spent my previous three years driving a 2.0 8V vauxhall, and I know what it's +ve aspects are, and think they are worthwhile having. (Assuming the VW engines are tuned similarly to the Vauxhall 8v engines.)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

now these do not change from 2.0 to 2.9 so why all the bitc**ing about the 8v.

 

I don't recall any bitching about the 8V, not that I've seen yet at least.

 

And why are you taking it so personally? Did you design and make the car? No, you didn't, so grow up and accept the fact we all have our own tastes and style.

 

K

[coolrado 0]

BUT its fantastic on fuel I can get >40mpg on motorways. So seeing as were heading for £1 per litre fuel I thinks its the best all round.

 

my g60 can do 45mpg from manchester to birmingham at a steady 70mph if your not flooring it all the time it is essentially the same as the 1.8 8v but with the power when you need it :D

 

my first "car" if you can call it that was a bond bug with a 700cc engine and was made of fibre glass you could lift the back up with one hand but you would still be lucky to get 28mpg :shock: out of it when it was running perfectly :(

 

heavier cars like the corrado benefit from having more power as the engine is not under as much strain and if you take it easy they return quite a healthy mpg figure

 

if you want real fuel economy buy a smart car or one of those audis from top gear the other week :lol:

[PhatVR6 0]

I loved my 8v lump, it pulled quite well and did 40mpg regularly.

 

I'm currently hating the VR6 lump, it doesn't feel anywhere near as quick as it should.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Only cause you haven't isolate the problem yet. You'll love it once it's sorted.

[RadoAds 0]

After owning both mk3 golf VR6 and my current car a 1.8 16v C then I can safely say that the C has style in the bucket load that the golf never had, but I dont think you can compare the engines, the VR was just soooooo sweet and sounded amazing and pulled like a train, the 1.8 valver on the other hand feels ok for what it is but at the end of the day it is only a 1.8 4 cylinder block which has been around for a long time now,................ theyre the same car Jim but not as we know it.

[PhatVR6 0]

I'd rather have a 2.0 8v than a 1.8 16v. now they are sh1te. utterly gutless.

[Linus Van Pelt 0]

now these do not change from 2.0 to 2.9 so why all the bitc**ing about the 8v.

 

I don't recall any bitching about the 8V, not that I've seen yet at least.

 

And why are you taking it so personally? Did you design and make the car? No, you didn't, so grow up and accept the fact we all have our own tastes and style.

 

K

 

Kev, in my experience, the 8V always get's slated for being 'underpowered', he's probably referring to the 0-60 times post :?:

 

I can see where G-SEXY is coming from though. All cars have there good points and bad points, and comparing within the range (whilst unfair) is sadly something which is always going to happen (human nature).

 

The really annoying part (and when It get's really, really boring) is to hear the same old tired comments come out every time comparisons get made - G60 vs VR6, 1.8 vs 2.0 etc.

 

Sensitive or not (and I fully admit I am way too sensitive for my own good), everyone has a point at which the constant belittling will make them snap.

 

It's precisely for these reasons I stopped posting to the Yahoo! group. (Only in this case I got fed up with hearing how the only 'proper' Corrado was a VR...).

 

Maybe it's just an 'empathy' thing, but I feel that telling someone you don't know to 'grow up' is possibly a tad harsh. Yes, they need to deal with it, not sure that was the right way ;)

 

However, playing 'Devil's Advocate', maybe G-SEXY could have expressed his point a little better...

 

DtM.

[G-SEXY 0]

Kevhaywire I'm not taking it personally Iike I say I have had 3 different C's so I think I can compare them well. Have a look through the forum there are load of "dont buy an 8v or the are sooo slow blah " quotes around.

Don't get me wrong if I had the money I would prefer the VR6 but like most people money is a very big consideration and of all the strong points of the corrado I'd say they did a poor job on the power front I mean 2.9 litre V6 to get 194 BHP is not a brilliant ratio by any means (unless your American).

But just to get it straight VR6= best C - if u can afford running the thing , G60= close 2nd All other models are a good 3rd (pre 91 specs are a bit old but still I'd rather have a G reg Rado than a G reg ford)

[Linus Van Pelt 0]

2.9 litre V6 to get 194 BHP is not a brilliant ratio by any means (unless your American).

 

Funny you should mention that... I was just reading some stuff on the 944/968 and I was suprised to read that the 3.0 lump in the 968 puts out 240bhp and that's from a N/A 4-pot :shock:

 

Now that's some serious engineering!

 

DtM.

[dr_mat 0]

I'd say getting 190 bhp from a 2861cc 6 with only 2 valves per cylinder and a redline at 6600 rpm is not that bad at all, actually (particularly in 1992).

Right now a 2.0 8v really appeals to me somehow.. A simple, reliable, torquey engine with the handling and style of a Corrado thrown in. Very appealing..

[PhatVR6 0]

I'll also put money on it that 99% of you lot have never even seen a 2.0 8v corrado, let alone driven one. actually, tell al ie, you probably saw mine put out 137BHP at the relloing road day at dubsport........

[vr6storm 0]

I'll also put money on it that 99% of you lot have never even seen a 2.0 8v corrado, let alone driven one. actually, tell al ie, you probably saw mine put out 137BHP at the relloing road day at dubsport........

 

well i must be an exception here........i've actually looked at 3 different ones(1999-2001 all N-plates 2 manuals and 1 auto ranging from £7k-£13.5K!!!!!!!) when i was looking to buy a C as that was all that seemed to crop up for sale in the aberdeen area when i was looking ..............thankfully i never pursued them any further :wink:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

G-Sexy, yeah I hear where you're coming from. Each Corrado was engineered for certain people. 8V/16V - Looks and style on a budget, G60 - For the enthusiast and VR6 for people that like GTs. I'm being honest here and the VR is exactly that in standard form, it's a big heavy tourer. I like it that way as I've been there and got all the 4 pot modding T-Shirts. I prefer the way the VR lazily lumps it's heavy arse around in 4th and 5th all day long, but you can turn into a 11 second NA 1/4 mile engine if you really wanted to.

 

I couldn't care less which C is faster or better, mine suits *me* and you should feel the same way.

 

2.9 litre V6 to get 194 BHP is not a brilliant ratio by any means (unless your American).

 

Funny you should mention that... I was just reading some stuff on the 944/968 and I was suprised to read that the 3.0 lump in the 968 puts out 240bhp and that's from a N/A 4-pot :shock:

 

DtM.

 

Yep that is a good engine. Twin counter-rotating balancer shafts took care of the inherent coarsness of 4 cylinder engines, especially ones over 2.0 in capacity.

 

190 isn't bad for a 2.9 designed in the 80s with a very mild tune. Yeah, look at the Mondeo 2.5 V6 with it's 170 brake, 4 less than the 2.8 VR, but it's got variable inlet and 24Valves. The VR is only 12V with a fairly restrictive head. Now add a Schrick and 268s cams + a remap to bring the VR inline with current technology and you get 220+ brake. Now compare that to the 3.0 BMW 24V Variable manifold, VANOS timed 231 bhp engine. Not so bad after all, is it?

 

And don't forget, a factory quote of 6.9 to 60 and 146 top end, from *only* 190 brake in a 1210Kg car is very good for a 90s car. The Civic Type R is only 3 or 4 tenths quicker to 60 and it has more power and less weight.

 

K

[dan 0]

I'd rather have a 2.0 8v than a 1.8 16v. now they are sh1te. utterly gutless.

 

I had a 1.8 16v & it was ok... in fact it is still ok when compared to todays cars. i.e. Ford Focus 1.8 16v 115bhp

[_leon_ 0]

what is the general feeling about the 2.0i 16V's? have most of you ended up wanting more and searching for a replacement VR6???

[Linus Van Pelt 0]

Tricky one. If you already own a 2.0 16V (should apply to the 2.0 8V and 1.8 16V though), and you want more power, and you still want a Corrado then you have four choices.

 

(1) Mod your existing Corrado (cams/head/chip/exhaust/turbo/supercharger) (Think Aposegil is the resident guru on this one)

(2) Replace with modern engine (e.g. 1.8T) (more than a few on here that have done this)

(3) Buy a G60

(4) Buy a VR6

 

I can make comments on what I've read about the G60 & the VR, but having never driven either, I can only speculate. What I can say is that it very much depends on what style of driving you want it for...

 

I ponder this one myself sometimes (hence the 944/968 research), but until I've actually tried driving the other models I won't be certain where I'll end up. The VR does seem to be the 'obvious' upgrade, but there's going to be a trade off between more power and losing the inherent characteristics of the 16V engine.

 

DtM.

[Mike Edwards 0]

Rather a 1.8 16v than a 2.0 16v...

 

(zips up flame suit...)

[_leon_ 0]

without fuelling the fire ;) - can I ask you why...

[Mike Edwards 0]

No cat, higher revving and therefore easier to tune the nuts off without having hassle at MOT time...

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Look at his signature! 154bhp from his 1800!

[Mike Edwards 0]

Yet to try all these tweaks that Stealth do as well... :D

[KARMANN 0]

I prefer the 1.8 16v over th 2.0 engines-because its a revy engine and seems to have more feeling,although iv only ever driven golfs with both of the 2.0 engines.

 

 

Cheers Fraser

[vr6storm 0]

I prefer the 1.8 16v over th 2.0 engines-because its a revy engine and seems to have more feeling,although iv only ever drive golfs with the 2.0 engines.

 

 

Cheers Fraser

 

if you're meaning the 16valve Golf engine found in the mk3 :?: its a different engine from the 2.0 16v found in the 2.0 16v C