2.0 16v or 1.8 16v?????????

[perrygt 0]

hi,

 

im new here and intrested in buying a carrado 16v but which one to chose out of the two?

The car what im driving now is a 1991 polo GT coupe.

 

whats the difference?

is there much in paformance?

 

thanks

[n3p 3]

Check these out:

 

http://the-corrado.net/wiki/index.php/Technical_Specs_-_1.8_16v

 

http://the-corrado.net/wiki/index.php/Technical_Specs_-_2.0_16v

[perrygt 0]

so really paformance wise the 1.8 16v is better. is this because most of them are older?

[colinstubbs 0]

The 2.0's have a Cat so there is more of a restriction i guess and the cams are less exciting, you get a bit more torque though. Ideally get a 2.0 and put a 1.8 head or cams in. By the way they both have 226 mm rear discs, the 1.8 does not have 254 mm rears, Mods the Specs could do with correcting. :wink:

[n3p 3]

so really paformance wise the 1.8 16v is better. is this because most of them are older?

 

1.8 has the KR engine, 2.0 has the 9a engine

[boost monkey 0]

KR engines are a lot cheaper than 9a engines too.

[Dec 1]

Not really a whole lot in it between the two, 2.0l pulls slightly better from low down, while the 1.8L is more 'rev happy'

 

The clincher for me would be in reliability though! The 1.8L fueling system is more basic and doesn't come up with nearly as many random idling and cold running problems! And if it ever does, 99% of the time it's just a vac leak through a loose pipe, or an ISV that needs cleaning. Couple that with troublesome abs sensors on the 2.0L and I know which one of the two I'd go for!

[Walesy 0]

I prefer the KR, it feels much better to drive and as Dec says, it doesn't seem to have as many problems that are difficult to find, however if I had to have a valver i'd go for the 9A over the KR every time just for the fact that you get the later interior etc with them.

[Dec 1]

Not on all of them! The early 2.0L's came with the early spec interior. :wink:

[perrygt 0]

think it may be the 1.8 then seems easier to work on an avalabilty.

 

any no the correct insurance group? as iv hear people say a bunch of groups

[colinstubbs 0]

I agree with Dec there's far less to go wrong with the 1.8's although there's also less tweaking you can do in comparision.

 

You can always swap the interior.

 

Doesn't matter how much you tweak it if it keeps breaking down though!!!! :wink:

 

Should be group 15 for the 1.8 Insurance although there was some talk of creating more groups so who knows.

Some insurers have said my 1.8 was group 20, like the VR6 :shock: so obviously I let them poke it up their ar$e!!!

[scarlett 0]

2ltr - KR Cam - 20 extra BHP.... :)

[skinnyman9000 0]

I much prefer the early interiors to be honest, its the difference between a mk2 and a mk3 golf, which one would you rather be in? :lol:

[krnau 0]

by the way, I have both kr cams for sale :norty:

[Walesy 0]

Well not really IMO, the Mk3 golf has a completely different interior to a MK2 and is in a completely different shell with a differnet seating postition etc etc, whereas the late rado is in the same car and has the same dashboard, but has updated switches/heater controlls(allthough troublesome!)/steering wheel/indicator stalks/instument cluster/newer seats etc etc So it's essentially the same thing but with a newer feel to it, it's not like it's been dulled down like the MK3.

 

 

I suppose it's horses for courses, but I much prefer the later exterior and interior :tongue:

[A-J 0]

If you've decided on a valver I'd just go and find the best example you can for your money and not discount either if them. As the comments show there isn't much between it.

[The Hub 0]

Like AJ says i'd go for the one in the best condition! 2.0l you have more chance of finding a lower milage, better condition one as these were the later cars, but there are a few good 1.8l examples out there. At the end of the day I'd rather not drive about in an unreliable shed just because it's that little bit quicker/torquery :lol:

[TomB 0]

I've owned both and on a personal level preferred the 2.0l valver over the 1.8. I liked the character of the engine more, as you could be lazy and pootle should you wish, or you could drive it hard and it would respond nicely. I always felt slightly like I was having to beat the 1.8 with a stick even when pottering.

 

I could be biased though as only one of them blew a hydraulic tappet taking the head and cams with it, and it wasn't the 2.0l!

 

Cheers,

 

Thomas

[loopylindsay 0]

i test drove both a 2l and a 1.8l and bought the 1.8l.

 

i found when you put your foot down in the 2l the speedo didnt rev up as quick as the 1.8l it was quick when you got to the right power band. the 2l did feel alot more retricted and slower to get going in my opinion!

 

i personnally felt that wen u put ur foot down down in the 1.8l it just keeps going and in the 2l it wouldnt get going to start!

 

both cars i felt like you could have a nice steady lazy drive in plus ive noticed the door card has perfectb lil arm rests just in the right place!

 

and i agree in someway that the 2l was a bit more lazy and the 1.8l is like a mk2 gti ITS BEGGING FOR A THRASHING! :D

[n3p 3]

...the 1.8l is like a mk2 gti ITS BEGGING FOR A THRASHING! :D

 

aye....aye 8)

[davidwort 0]

so now you've made the correct choice, find a 2L bottom end for the 1.8, best of both worlds, you've got the simpler fuel system, no cat to strangle it and your emissions can be further out :)

 

It's also lighter than the 2L, the fuel tank is smaller so the boot is bigger, your heater controls can be used without fear of breaking, there's a nice armrest in the back seat and who needs ABS anyway... oh, and the later style dash in the 2L reminds me of a Skoda Felicia rather than a proper VW :lol:

[loopylindsay 0]

very true i love the bucket seats in the back! mine still has an unopened first aid kit from 1990 not sure if i should use some of it but i guess if you crash you wont care! :tongue:

 

i love my 1.8l and the retro style dash! 8)

 

[skinnyman9000 0]

For me, the 1.8L is an old car, and feels like an old car. Whereas the 2.0L tries to be more modern, but just fails.

 

Thats my call on it anyway, much prefer the earlier interiors

[StuartFZR400 0]

each to thier own. Go sit in a few.

Personally prefer interior of the later 2.0L. And had it in mind that less would go wrong... a newer car; but now they're all a bit old and subject to stuff going wrong. You want a mint VR6 ;)

[Ashun 0]

I have used my ABS quite a few times :shock: so it gets used .

 

Ash