16v differences 1.8 v 2.0

[timthetinyhorse 0]

My mate is looking to but his 1st corrado and is looking at 16vs

 

The main question that crops up is what is the difference/what is best......the 1.8 16v or 2.0 16v

 

I had a 2.0 16v and loved it but at times i would hear the 9a engine getting some negative words when compared to the 1.8 16v, i understand they are very similar when it comes to performance but can anyone give me the pros and cons of both?

 

Cheers

 

Rob

[davidwort 0]

long time since this one has come up!

in a very quick summary, the 1.8 has no cat and the simpler but similar fuel injection system - good

2.0 has revised exterior and interior (interior all but first few months of production in 1992 cars)

2.0 has abs as standard, revised electrics - all have electric windows with one touch down from factory (not on most 1.8's)

2.0 has larger fuel tank and shallower boot

1.8 has rear centre armrest

numerous little changes, like a cooler pipe on the 2.0 (which rusts) for the PAS in the front panel, better pulley arrangement for alternator, but a lower profile inlet camshaft and reduced red-line compared to 1.8.

2.0 has a lower and flatter torque band but the 1.8 pulls better at the top end and the 1.8 is generally a little lighter, shifter mechanism with weights is slightly better feeling on the 2.0, although has a plastic part that fails unlike 1.8.

1.8 gearbox is lower and closer ratio.

[timthetinyhorse 0]

thanks mate plenty info there,

 

what is the power difference between the 1.8 and 2.0?? Also is there any advantage of running the KR cams in a 9A head?

[davidwort 0]

about the same peak power, but the torque delivery makes the 2.0 easier for driving sedately :)

KR inlet cam in the 2.0 does improve it a little although the lower gearing of the 1.8 makes up some of the more urgent feel of the 1.8.

I think I'd probably go for a 2.0 on balance, and generally they have less rot as they are a few years younger.

[timthetinyhorse 0]

Thanks for the advice davidwort

 

stolen from another forum if anyone else is viewing this thread;

 

The KR 1.8 16v is the same 139BHP engine as the mk2 Golf 16v.....but in a heavier body. (may also be a couple of BHP less)

 

The 2L 16v is a 9A (136BHP). Less power than the KR but more torque. Swapping to a KR inlet cam & setting up should give around 150BHP...

 

A flowed head & schrick cams can give 170+BHP

[CazzaVR 0]

Late 2.0 with KR cam is the way to go IMHO. Flowed head works very well on the valver as well.

 

Have a look at the link in David's sig above- well worth a read! His 16v is the best I've driven (and I've driven loads!) and isn't too far off a standard VR for pace 8)

[corradophil 3]

The limitation with both 1.8 and 2.0 16v models for tuning is the fuelling system.

 

The 1.8 has K-Jetronic and the 2.0 KE-Motronic.

 

A well known modification for K-Jetronic to achieve improved fuelling for modified engines is the WUR (Warm Up Regulator) mod. KE-Motronic does not have the warm up regulator, but a very similar adjustment can be made.

 

I have a 2.0 16v, which is 2008cc, 11:1 compression, has a flowed head, ABF cams (more lift than KR). With KE-Motronic and KR cams which were previously fitted it made 154bhp after fuel adjustments.

 

I since fitted the ABF cams, megasquirt and ITBs. With only road tuning it is now 178bhp. I will be fitting a 4 branch manifold in the coming months, and then will get it tuned on a dyno to optimise fueling and ignition timing.

 

My advice would be, get a 2.0 16v. If more power is required and you don't want to get a VR6 or G60, make sure it is running as it should be with no faults, then fit ABF cams. After this you really want a wideband AFR meter which will enable you to monitor adjustments to the fuel mixture and fine tune the mixture. Both K-Jetronic and KE-Motronic are limited in the adjustment available. This should see you at around 150bhp on the meanest dyno.

 

If at this point you want more power, I would get an ABF intake manifold, injector rail, injectors, throttle body and suitable airbox. Then install a stand alone engine management system such as Megasquirt or Emerald. With this you can optimise the fuel and ignition to get the very best from the engine in it's current state. Now you should be up to around 160bhp and 150-160 Ibft of torque.

 

After this you have all the components for taking full advantage of head modifications, after-market cams, capacity increases, or whatever else you want. The ABF injectors could become a limiting factor, and you would probably want to look into modifying a 1.8t injector rail or similar to enable the use of more readily available injectors.

[seanl82 23]

That seems an awful lot of work, compared to just putting an ABF in anyway for 150bhp standard.

 

Having had a 1.8 (pictured), Its a great car. I drove a 2.0 when I was looking, and was utterly disappointed tbh. It didn't feel at all like it had more torque low down, and there was nothing after 5k rpm. The KR I chose (again, pictured), although again didn't have an awful lot of torque low down, as soon as you hit about 4.5k rpm, it felt almost like a light v-tec! The torque seemed to be great the higher up the rev range I went, and pulled all the way to the red-line. The only performance mods it had was a Jetex panel filter, 4 branch, and SS exhaust. I'd recommend a drive in both, to see how it suits your friends driving mate.

Edited December 18, 2012 by seanl82

[corradophil 3]

That seems an awful lot of work, compared to just putting an ABF in anyway for 150bhp standard.

 

 

For an ABF to be factory as per the Mk3 Golf GTI, you would need to swap the injection etc over anyway.

 

It's far easier to buy a 9a engined Corrado and swap the cams, than change the whole engine. AFR gauge is a bit of work to install, but it does enable accurate monitoring of the fuel mixture, and anyone with reasonable skill could install one.

 

It's the intake cam that ruins the 9a, otherwise it is just a 2.0 kr.