Interesting, this is being debated on vwvortex atm. Big port(aeg) heads with 2.0 bottom ends, people are throwing figures of 200whp around like its childsplay. That bloke nate romero(sp?)doing it in the 9 second corrado seem to have everyone thinking its easy as pie to get well into 250ishbhp na. I wasn't aware that the heads were so fragile, thanks for that bill. And also, everyone needs to make a distinction between fully lifed race engines and road engines. Are we talking 14:1, 100+ octaneand 9000+ and a few meetings? Or something you can just build and change the oil and plugs? This is the problem with na debates, na engines always end up becoming racing engines at some point and become more and more impractical as they get there. I appreciate that the debate is 16 vs 20, but in what i've read(i havn't played extensively with either, so i should probably shut up), parameters need to be set out, at what level of tune. Since the knowledge is out there to take 16v's a very long way indeed, so they can reliably make more power(theoretically), where as(theoretically) a 20v as a concept will make more at top end with mega revs but it's not been done a great deal. I wishtwo things, the wrc would become 2.0 na andvag still made 20v engines. I would love forskoda motorsport to start making serious ground tuning and developingthe 20v engine. But alas, it will always remain the domain of privateers. And probably for not very long. On a vaguely related note, has anyone seen any serious analysis of the new mk5 16v heads? Have they done away with the port shapes that drake and co hated so much?
