oh I was getting worried im looking for 2.0 16v modified cars with good power spec's to compare with mine!
RobT - 245+ Badger Bill - 230+ Ian B - 202 (i think) Barny - 199.8 Matt D - 198 (i think?) Mine - 182 (but better mid-range )
Most of the ITB'd cars have 170-180lb/ft. The really crazy ones like RobT's would have to be beyond 200lb/ft. Last time, mine had 172lb/ft at around 6000RPM and a pretty good spread, but feels a fair bit stronger now, so am going back on the dyno after a good service chasing (a hopefully genuine) 220BHP and 180lb/ft, but I don't really trust any dyno...
THANK YOU!!!! Fantastic. Exactly what I needed. Just as I thought, They exactly the same upto about 3k then the 8 extra valves come into play. It's because of the 8v's flat torque that it seems better at lower revs where as the 16v is vertually the same but doesn't seem as impressive at lower revs because of it's amazing higher reving performance.
Good graph that, should finally bury the myth that the 8v has better torque at any revs than the valver (for stock cars).
200+ lbft is a lot of torque for a 2L n/a, I'd be sceptical. For example even a 4 pot M3 engine with 300 or 500 extra cc, depending on spec, doesn't have that much torque. Granted it probably doesn't rev as high as RobT's engine but it's no like you make peak torque up there anyway.
I've been on badger 5 web site, Ive seen the power output even the demo car 152 lbft with 204 hp I aint seen any one with more than 180. I knwow a 2.2 16v on ITB's who has 194 with 198 hp but thats 2.2! are you sur ur not gettin mixed up with Nm ?
I dont think that graph really explains the workings of the 8v/16v debate as the 16v will always look the stronger on graphs because of the way it works but driving a 16v & 8v of the same power the 8v always feels stronger lower down the revs because it is already using up half its power & is coming "on cam" earlier where as the 16v because of how it is set up will always feel that little more bogged down in the lower revs because it wasnt designed for low rev grunt but more for the higher power distribution & revs. It's just down to how well the given car has been set up & what your driving preferences to choose between the two are but obviouslly as a starting base for big power the 16v will always be the cheaper option, but if money isnt a problem then any engine with enough input into it can get big power.
I've driven a few valvers recently as I've looking to buy one (very, very difficult to find anything nice ), obviously they are quicker, just not as quick as allot of 16v owners would like to make out...
This must be the most repeated thread in the history of GTI forums and mailing lists. Noah started the ball rolling I'm sure
As has already been said, you are not going to notice the difference until it comes to really revving the 16v, at which time it is simply quicker. If that's not your style then there's no that much point buying a 16v. It's a bit like my folks. They both drive 8v cars and the delivery is very flat ie you put your foot down, it goes but there is no real build up of power (as you would expect in a 16v). Suits them perfectly - they only see 3.5k rpms by accident or on M-way. I have to drive their cars just to give them the caning they need
It all changes again when the 16v in question delivers more torque at 3000rpm than the KR does at peak...
or more torque at 2250rpm than my old tuned KR gave at peak.... Mike - i would be very keen to see a copy of a Stealth rolling road file from your car - then prof can post it as a direct comparison to my old 2042 16v (179bhp @6500ish and 155lbft @ 5500ish)
If they were the same power it would be a very well tuned engine and the overall power and torque characteristics would move from thier current rpm so you can't compare. It's there in black and white anyway, the 16v just has more torque all the way through. True it was designed for more power but it still has more torque from the start. fullstop. We're comparing engines in the same state of tune anyway. The comment about having an 8v of the SAME power is like saying I'll just spen a few grand tuning my 8v and I bet it's quicker than your perfectly standard 16v. Now is that a valid argument.?? I think not. Too many doors, Not enough valves
But it's not all about power is it. I mean the 8v engine is a fair bit simpler/cheaper to fix when it goes wrong etc. it's also quieter due to the fact it's got half as much valve train. This, and the digifant management, also mean it's a fair bit more economical too. Also the 8v won't bend valves if the cambelt slips. I think there's more to whether an engine is "good" rather than simply its power output. For me, overall, the 8v just shades it as being the better engine. (And I drive a 16v ) Cheers, Joe
But the 16v is generally accepted as being a stronger engine, so less likley to go wrong. Sodium valves, oils squirters under pistons etc... Also, the MPG argument - get 180+ bhp out of an 8v and keep 30mpg... i have on my 16v!
