It depends on the way you drive really. If you dont like reving engines high, and like a torquey drive at low rpm's then the 8v is definately for you. However, if you like to rev cars then the 16v is the one to go for. Its a LOT faster than an 8v if you drive it properly. I personally prefer my 16v over my 8v. The 8v just feels flat in comparison when you get it out on the open road. Thats not to say there is anything wrong with 8v's though - both great cars
I totally agree that the 16v is superior to the 8v in standard trim, provided its in a good state of Health, & the average 8v driver is able to adapt their driving style to get the most out of it... I now have the best of both worlds.2L 8v torque combined with something just above KR 16v top end power. Not cheap, but it suits my driving style... A 2L 16v in a mk2 offers the same & more.... My next incarnation of the engine should poke power up to 180ish BHP & maybe have me mixing it with some of the pokier 16vs. Watch this space...
Yes, the Digi head is good for about 170HP for a street port and big valves. For a full race port and big valves it will achive 200HP. These are actual values that my head working place have flowed them at. You need throttle bodies or at the very least a redesigned intake manifold/plenum to get these values. Don't bother going for a crossflow or 16V after all the money you (and I) have spent on the Digi head. I am fabricating manifolds, plenum chambers and runners suitable for Digi ITBs if you are interested.
If you want to pay for an air ticket from Hobart, Australia to Heathrow airport, I'd be there for sure
Surely the ITBs will sit right above the exhaust, & there is next to no room behind a mk2 head as it is??? My plan involved them being on the other side of the head I must admit... Its no great problem moving the head on. I've got a "few" interested parties at the moment..
Does anyone know how I could get these graphs from VW. The official figures would be best and they'd be perfedt test conditions too.
fthaimike!What you done to your 8v inorder to outpulls a lot of 16v?Mine 8v the other way round always slower than the 16v!
do you have a torque plot of your you can post mike? mine was hitting somewhere over 126lb/ft by about 2250rpm
i think mike is running over 150lb torque. remember TSR built this motor for hill climbing. it had bags and bags of torque
Mikes car will be over 150lbs/ft... His was pulling 147atw on TSRs rollers on the day mine did 140... I estimate my car to now be circa 155-160BHP & 150+ lbs/ft Remember Mikes is a 2.1 as well...so "loads-a-torque"!
to be fiar to mike, his car will pass most and keep up with the best 16v's plus with it being in a light mk1 shell really does make a difference.
All these figures were a few months before my last rr when the engine was still running in (now on 10k): 204Nm (150 1b/ft) at about 5000rpm 175Nm (129 lb/ft) at about 3500rpm 150Nm (111 lb/ft)at about 2500rpm I would think that it is higher than those figures now but maybe it's just how it delivers the power & it feels strong from very low down combined with the longer ratios of the 4+E box & the mk1 shell like Velly said. I have had everything tinkered with at some point but its not a track screaming engine as such just seems to be put together well (even better than the last build) & if i was going to track it i would have had a pack "D" instead of the "C" & maybe a wilder cam than the tsr 102?. I was chuffed after taking out golfboychris of the big20vt fame & being told that he was "pleasantly surprised" . Anyway i just like winding up you 16valvers Edited by: fthaimike
Its good to compare where the torque comes in on each of the engines. The audi makes a peak of around 145 lb/ft @ 3500rpm - must be a very flat curve. (while your posting ChrisMC what were you up to in Melksham "Wiltshires capitol of cultre" the other day??)
