2.0 16v and 1.8 16v

[DubGarry 0]

i've heard the 2.0 16v raddo is slower than the 1.8 16v, also what is the bhp of the 2.0 i know the 1.8 is aroudn the 134bhp mark, just that i went to no-rice last nite and sat in a mates raddo and it was such an improvement over my polo. Also how how easy are they to tune - Cams etc

 

hope i dont annoy anyone by bieng this much of an amateur

[just_say_meth 0]

As far as i was aware they are both the same bhp but the 2.0l has more torque.

 

But sure one of the valver guys will be over shortly to shed more light.

 

Have heard that putting the kR inlet came from the 1.8 into the 2.0l makes a very healthy improvement. not sure on bhp figures tho!

[Goldie 2]

I believe 160bhp ish is achievable with cams and a few other straight forward mods.

[jonnyboyo 0]

According to the technical specs for both models in the knowledge base at the top of the screen, the 2.0 is slower than the 1.8. Not sure how this can be because the 2.0 has exactly thr same BHP and a decent wedge more torque. Its maybe down to the fact that the 2.0 litres have catalytic converters and the 1.8's don't.

Anywho, here are the specs for both models :-

 

1.8 16v

 

136bhp @ 6300rpm

119lb/ft of torque @ 4800rpm

Top speed 131mph

0-60 8.7 seconds

 

2.0 16v

 

136bhp @ 5800rpm

132lb/ft of torque @ 4400rpm

Top speed 126mph

0-60 10.2 seconds

 

Hope this is of some use. I've never driven a 2.0 so cannot comment on how they differ from a 1.8. Best bet is to test drive both and get a feel for them.

I can't see how the 2.0 will be any slower than the 1.8 with 13lb/ft of torque more and the same 136bhp.

The only thing i can comment on is my 1.8 valver and the other 2 i have driven. They don't tend to do an awful lot below the 4000rpm mark, you have to fairly give it some if you want to shove a bit. IMO thats due to the woeful 119lb/ft of torque. Which is why i'd like to drive a 2.0 with that extra dose of torque. Besides, you could always take the cat off to boost the performance figures :)

Good luck and happy hunting.

[DubGarry 0]

cheers that was helpful, trying to make my mind up, so a 2.0l with a decat would be quicker than the 1.8 in lamens terms

[Jim 2]

Probably, yes. The only problem is getting it through the MOT. The latest year car you can get away with a decat is 1992 on a J reg I think.

 

As has been said above, with the 2.0 16v you can slap the KR inlet cam in from the 1.8 16v motor and gain an instant 15BHP. Really makes a difference too. I've owned a 2.0 16v both with and without the mod and you can really feel every one of those horses :)

[Phil K 0]

Mine is for sale and has the cams and injection set up (not yet fitted) to take it up to 160bhp if not more - click on the link in my sig for more info...

[VeeDub Geezer 0]

the biggest reason for the slower 0-60 figures is the ghey Passat 'box that the 2.0 was blessed with...

 

id like to see what a 2.0 16, with KR cam, de-cat, re-map/chip + WUR Mod, decent filter and exhaust would put out on the rollers

 

also maybe fit a 1.8 16v 'box?

 

*edit* just noticed the top speed of 126mph... thats b*llox as well.. lmao

[bananawhip 0]

I've been toying with the idea of getting a 2.0 but my 1.8 has kinda won me over.

I know its all about owning a VR or tuned G60 but just for having a bit of fun in I can't fault the 1.8 valver.

Just feels light and spritely, You can launch out of lights nicely with easy to control optional wheelspin, throw it around and as long as you keep it in the power band it responds well.

You do constantly find yourself staring at the Tacho waiting for the fun to start at 4 grand (especially with a 50mm inlet) but I can deal with that.

Easy to repair too with parts from the mk2, only gripe is the lack of A.B.S has stitched me up on more then one occasion.

I hit 60 in mine in 7.5 and top out at 140mph with a few suttle mod's that didn't evolve much work.

I'd just buy a 1.8 mate and drive everywhere like a loony.

[cvw 0]

my thoughts exactly just polishin up my eurofold at the mo . then gonna try and save up to get the maximum possible from 1.8 whippet

[iggi 0]

id get a 1.8. my mate had a 2litre, but felt so flat compared to my 1.8. didnt seem to have any excitement in it. like bananawhip says, keep it in the powerband and it does everythin you need. and its so simple without cat etc.

[Rustynuts 0]

Running a 2.0l on K-jet is the way forward, with flowed head, KR cams and 4 branch you should see over 180 bhp. Or just sod it and buy a modded G60 or VR

[Deluk 0]

Jim, dose it lower the torque and up the bhp with the kr cam upgrade ? i like the torque , i have had a 1.8valver golf and i had to rev it to get her going over 4 k , but the 2.0 dont need that it pulls harder in all gears standard .

 

and do you get a power band at 4k when you change the cam for a KR one ??

I got some cam's from a KR not sure about doing the upgrade tho i like torque :)

 

Deluk

[DubGarry 0]

whats the rough price for the cam kits, and what brandsdo you reccomend, i've looked at schrick (£600) and newman, but they dont do one for the raddo engines. Are the engines the same as those in the mk2 / 3 golf gtis?

 

didnt think you can get a chip for a raddo?

 

4 branch will be one of the 1st things ordered tho

 

Chris