vr6 turbo vs 20v turbo

[Bournemouth James 0]

What are your thoughts on this?

[DruidicCurse 0]

I think its a matter of taste. Both engines are good. There are several factors though. The 20V turbo is a stock engine on the MK4's. I dont think the VR6 ever came stock with a turbo, has it? its been done in the after market, which can get rather expensive. So right there its a matter of economics. You can get a 20v turbo cheaper because it comes included in the price of the car.

Another factor you can't dispute is valves = Horsepower.

i think the VR6 although its weight is more puts out more HP. it would be fun to see the numbers on both engines side by side. this should prove to be an interesting thread. cheers Bournemouth James!! :D

[dub16 0]

IMO opinion, although there would be a lot of work in the transplant for the 20v T it is the more tunable engine giving you more bhp per £. It's be best going for the 225bhp TT engine or S3 unit as they have a stronger bottom end etc to cope with the extra power so therefore can cope with extra boost if you were to fit a larger T4 turbo later on.

 

Not an expert in the slightest but know a bit about the work that goes in to a VR6 Turbo conversion. It does give the power as you can see from reading up on it, but if it was my money I would go for the newer, more modern engine.

 

It really depends how far you would want to take the engine and how much you are able to budget for.

 

Hope this helps??

[CorradoVR6-Turbo 0]

The VR6 still is used in the golf's,bora ect its but has a 24 valve head plonked on,so as for the more modern engine the VR6 is still up there and the 20 Valve turbo is not much different than the old 8 Valvers and as we all know how strong the bottom ends are(why change something that is good)

 

There is nothing quite like a turbod VR6 is there?!!

 

but all in all the 20valve is the cheaper option

[Kevin Bacon 5]

There is no substitute for cubic capacity and to that end it's got to be a blown VR or 3.2 transplant - when they're more plentiful. VAG have chosen to use the V6 for their high performance models now, owing to it's flexibility, character, torque and smoothness. The front end weight problem is now as much resigned to history as Porsche's rear engine layout pendulum effect problem. VW have stuck to that configuration tenaciously and it's paying off, just as Porshce found with it's physics defying 911.

 

Kev

[20v turbo 0]

i debaited over the same question for about a month ,after driving both the vr6&g60,i dropped a 20v turbo in mine just for allround driveability & tuneing.i have had abit of tweaking on the management & its now running at 190 bhp 278nm,at 0.9bar

[vr6storm 0]

i debaited over the same question for about a month ,after driving both the vr6&g60,i dropped a 20v turbo in mine just for allround driveability & tuneing.i have had abit of tweaking on the management & its now running at 190 bhp 278nm,at 0.9bar

 

 

yeah but as the standard VR6 is rated at 190bhp and 181lb/ft(can't remember the nm value)a turbo'd :wink: VR would be quite a beast(ok a very expensive one)with an amazing soundtrack which i'm sure you'll be the first to admit the 20v T is exactly blessed with

[20v turbo 0]

i do admit the tune of the vr6 is going to be hard to beat,but as an all round option eg,insurance,fuel,handling,the 20v turbo is better in my opinion having had both g60&vr6

[PhatVR6 0]

Power is overrated. I have trouble putting dowm 207BHP with my VR powered mk2 Golf, even with a torque biasing diff it still spins both front wheels up in 2nd and chirps in 3rd.

 

Do't even contemplate running over 300BHP with 2WD.

[ruffy 0]

i do admit the tune of the vr6 is going to be hard to beat,but as an all round option eg,insurance,fuel,handling,the 20v turbo is better in my opinion having had both g60&vr6

 

 

Yep.. I agree and its lighter.. the original engine was a G60 in my car and the 20vt was noticeably lighter.. try a ihi upgrade.. even with a aum or agu block it gives you 320bhp .. VR6 engines tend to be abit lazy in my opinon .. they just dont like to rev..

[PhatVR6 0]

Try a VR6 with a Schrick manifold, cams and a lightened flywheel and/or crank pulley. Those ones like to rev.

[Joe M 0]

Power is overrated. I have trouble putting dowm 207BHP with my VR powered mk2 Golf, even with a torque biasing diff it still spins both front wheels up in 2nd and chirps in 3rd.

 

Do't even contemplate running over 300BHP with 2WD.

 

 

Ive seen the spec of your car on the Vortex forum, arent you running some crazy gear ratios that makes the car flat out at something like 115 in 5th? Id imagine this makes the wheelspin worse in the lower gears. :?

[ClassicStorm 0]

Guys,

 

Am I not right in saying that 200bhp is about the maximum feasible for a FWD car?Anything more and wheel spin is more or less guarenteed...

 

Just my 2p

 

I want to see a 4wd C with the 3.2 out of RS32 etc...hmmm power!

[PhatVR6 0]

Yep, I've got a 3.94 final drive and a 6 speed kit. makes the engine much more lively and the car is a hell of a lot faster as a result. downside is that 1st gear can be a bit short, and it'll spin in 2nd too with cr4p tyres on. But I always planned to go 4WD anyway so that's not a problem.

 

Stock VR gearing is horrible, I love my 3.94.

 

I don't know of another normally aspirated VR6 in the country that'll run into the 13's on the 1/4 mile.

[G60 0]

i know of some G60's over here that run 13s... stock gearbox. limited slip diff..

 

i'd say 200whp is about as much as you could want in a FWD car.. 200 to the wheels, not bhp. you just need to control wheelspin in lower gears and a limited slip diff helps a lot. any more power then that and you need to think about syncro.. although i've heard that the syncro system gets a little flaky when you put a lot of power through it so its really a toss up. of course i've never put a syncro system in a corrado so i don't really know. :lol:

 

bottom line.. a 2.9L or 3.2L (or anything in between) VR has more sheer displacement than 1.8L or even a bored out 20v to 2L. more power potential. if money is no object you WILL get more power from the VR lump, obviously. but, as mentioned, the 20vT is a newer design, comes with a turbo (over here anyway, we don't have NA 20v's) and vs. a VR6T i would imagine it would be a far more streetable car. just depends what you want... insane speed or a car to drive around like a sane person. :lol:

 

you better believe if i had a wad of bills burnin a hole in my pocket i'd give a 3.2L VR6T a chance as straight-line track warrior... (even though I'm not a fan of the VR6)... the sheer displacement alone gives it more potential than anything else vdub makes... (that will fit in a corrado, W8/W12 don't count!!). if i was going for a high-power track car (for the twisties) i'd go with an audi 5-cyl turbo...

[Kevin Bacon 5]

i'd say 200whp is about as much as you could want in a FWD car.. 200 to the wheels, not bhp.

 

For someone that has little or no experience of powerful FWD cars, then yeah, but if you're an experienced driver then 250bhp or maybe more, should not prove to be beyond control. I used to have around 200 Wheel HP on my old MK2 Golf 16V Turbo and felt the chassis (and me) could handle more. It felt more civilised and controllable than my old E30 BMW 325i, which only had 170bhp going through the rear wheels.

 

If you're mad on thrashing away from the lights in 1st gear, then any amount of power is going to cause spin. If you're more into mid-range thrust than traffic light Grand Prix, then you need lots of torque and power.

 

It's all relative. 200bhp is NOT the limit for FWD. Certain people say it is but then they can't speak for everybody, can they?

 

Nobody waved their fingers about having more than 600bhp in a Mclaren F1 that weighs less than a Corrado did they? Yes it's RWD, but it's the same principal. Give a boot full off the lights and it WILL spin and squirm down the road. Give a FWD car with 200+ hp a boot full of the lights and the same happens. What's the difference?

 

Kev

[G60 0]

i said 200 to the wheels kev, everyone who posted before me said 200 at the crank which is really only about 180 at the wheels is it not?

 

i agree, you need to harness the power. my main concern is if the drivetrain will hold up passed 200whp... you start passing the 200 barrier and things start breaking rather quickly.. which is the difference between our cars and a great number of RWD cars... their drivelines are generally far beefier as a rule, being RWD, and as a result the drivelines can usually handle more power without modification.

[MADDUB 0]

the driveline on a corrado will take about 300 BHP befor you need to up rate it and i know some one that has 360 BHP and thats FWD that is one fun car no good for wet days tho and when my car comes back from tsr in a week or 2 it will be up to 350 BHP :lol: :lol: and why put a tubo on a vr you can get 500 BHP out of a 20VT with out any probs

[dazzyvr6 0]

if you got the cash then its pretty obvious the vr6 will give you better results

[G60 0]

the 20v head has a LOT of potential.

 

however, i think you'll find that the difference between 5 valves per cylinder in the 20v vs. the 4v/cyl of the 3.2L 24v VR6 is not enough to warrant sticking with the 20v if ultimate power is the goal. the extra valve is nice but the extra displacement of the 3.2L vs. the 1.8L more than makes up for it... almost double the displacement! if you're going for a dyno or drag queen car and money is no object it has to be 24v VR6 T ... or maybe two, stick another in the back seat while you're at it! :lol:

 

1000whp AWD corrado??? that's my pick! :shock: :lol:

[Kevin Bacon 5]

i said 200 to the wheels kev, everyone who posted before me said 200 at the crank which is really only about 180 at the wheels is it not?

 

Hmmmm, so did I....

 

I used to have around 200 Wheel HP on my old MK2 Golf 16V Turbo

 

My main concern is if the drivetrain will hold up passed 200whp... you start passing the 200 barrier and things start breaking rather quickly..

 

Yeah that's quite true. The main weakness is the diff rivets. Replacing these with bolts is a good start. If you use an open diff, the power can spin away safely but if you use an LSD, then you load up the box more and increase the chance of breaking it......but with an open diff, you obviously lose the traction advantage.

 

Kev

[20v turbo 0]

vr6 storm wrote (yeah but as the standard VR6 is rated at 190bhp and 181lb/ft(can't remember the nm value)a turbo'd VR would be quite a beast(ok a very expensive one)with an amazing soundtrack which i'm sure you'll be the first to admit the 20v T is exactly blessed with) well i can tell you mate your still a little bit shortb,181lb/ft is 245nm. :lol:

[vr6storm 0]

vr6 storm wrote (yeah but as the standard VR6 is rated at 190bhp and 181lb/ft(can't remember the nm value)a turbo'd VR would be quite a beast(ok a very expensive one)with an amazing soundtrack which i'm sure you'll be the first to admit the 20v T is exactly blessed with) well i can tell you mate your still a little bit shortb,181lb/ft is 245nm. :lol:

 

 

yes a standard Corrado VR6 is only 181lb/ft or 245nm but if it was modded with a turbo as your 20v turbo is then i believe its going to quite comfortably out-torque you.......even if a VR6 just had the VSR,revised cams and chip(easy 215+lb/ft) it would be putting out more torque than your turbo'd 4cylinder.......remember that your 20v turbo isn't straight out of the box so to compare it with a standard VR6 isn't really a fair comparison......compare it with a turbo'd or VSR'd VR6 and then say the 20v turbo is the better engine

[Ess Three 0]

yes a standard Corrado VR6 is only 181lb/ft or 245nm but if it was modded with a turbo as your 20v turbo is then i believe its going to quite comfortably out-torque you.......even if a VR6 just had the VSR,revised cams and chip(easy 215+lb/ft) it would be putting out more torque than your turbo'd 4cylinder.......remember that your 20v turbo isn't straight out of the box so to compare it with a standard VR6 isn't really a fair comparison......compare it with a turbo'd or VSR'd VR6 and then say the 20v turbo is the better engine

 

Let's compare like with like then shall we?

 

You can't possibly rattle on about comparing directly, the two engines. 2.9 litre 6 cylinder vs 1.8 litre 4 cylinder with a turbo the size of an orange! Hardle fair to compare them directly...however, you can compare the relative preformance when fitted to their respective chassis.

 

Let's say Corrado VR6 against S3.

S3 has more power and torque, but weighs more so in terms of comparing car for car it's a perfectly valid comparison

...standing start in all conditions the S3 is quicker - how much quicker is dependant on driver and conditions, but for the majority of normal people it's noticably quicker.

...middrange, the S3 with it's torque delivery, the TT / S3 absolutely murders a Corrado VR6. Period.

 

Now lets assume modified:

VR6 with £4000 spent on it...compared to S3 with the same amount spent...basically:

VR6 with Schrick VSR & 268s, big TB, big valve head, exhaust and mapped to suit...what sort of power...maybe 240 BHP / 230 lb-ft or torque if you are lucky.

S3 with re-map, Exhaust & cats, FMIC, Samco hoses but retaining the standard turbo...maybe 270 BHP / 305 lb-ft.

You tell me which will be quicker?

 

Now lets look at turboing the VR6...

Let's say 400 BHP but 'only' 280-300 lb-ft of torque...turbo's VR6's don't make monumantal torque.

Quicker than a sorted - but standard turbod - S3...so lets look at a big turbo S3...350 BHP / 350 lb-ft...or higher...up to 400 BHP / 350 lb-ft depending upon the tuner you use.

 

In this case the VR6 is far more an equal adversary for the S3...but you need to have 4 WD and another £4000 spent on the tranny to use the power / torque.

In normal everyday occasions the tuned S3 engined car will be the quicker for the money spent, more reliable, easier to get parts for, less likely to overheat, less likely to weep at the headgasket (turbo'd VR6 problem) etc...

 

The TT/S3 1.8T is a wonderful engine...superb tuning potential at a reasonable cost...not sounds cack.

The VR6 is an incredible engine...sounds superb...but doesn't make the change to forced induction easily or happily.

 

 

It's very easy to say that you can't compare the two because one is turbo'd...what a load of rubbish...you use the old motorsport equivelant formula for BTCC turbo vs NA and you find they are directly comparable...infact you may find the VR6 has the edge! :wink:

 

You also have to compare torque delivery - high on a VR6 and flat from 2500 to about 5500 on a 1.8T.

 

You also have to consider gearing...which is only a toeque multiplier after all.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

You can't possibly rattle on about comparing directly, the two engines. 2.9 litre 6 cylinder vs 1.8 litre 4 cylinder with a turbo the size of an orange!

 

Is that an Orange sized turbine or housing? :D

 

Hardle fair to compare them directly...

 

I personally think comparing the modern multivalve 1.8T with an effective capacity of 2500cc+ with a crude 2.9 2 vpc engine is quite valid actually.

 

...middrange, the S3 with it's torque delivery, the TT / S3 absolutely murders a Corrado VR6. Period.

 

Again, I take issue with you there. My standard VR6 easily sticks with my mate's Leon Cupra R in all conditions. And they're not too dissimilar weight wise.

 

Now lets look at turboing the VR6...

Let's say 400 BHP but 'only' 280-300 lb-ft of torque...turbo's VR6's don't make monumantal torque.

 

Actually, it's more like 370bhp with 405lb/ft if you use an EIP tuning kit.

 

At the end of the day, any engine can be made more powerful than the next. It's all down to how big your wallet is and how much time you can spend doing it.

 

Kev