no 8v? isn't that the plain 2ltr? I'd say the only way to decide what you want is to drive one of each
Yeah 22MPG is rediculas really!! I have seen 25 out of a TVR Chimera 450 on a good run!! Anyway again cheers for all your help and I will check out that Corrado forum coullstar. Ta very much again and if anyone has anything else to add then please let me know!!
Thought you were the Corrado expert along with Mr. Brown? Resurrected this thread whilst searching for Corrado VR6 if you were wondering why I dug this up!
Better safe than sorry - anything on the net can be wrong. At least you won't have problems with rotted rear turrets on a Corrado.
Don't believe the figure on the G60 mpg, it is wrong, it should be more like 32 mpg. G60's generally only become thirsty when modified ie with chip and pulley. Personally I love the G60, I would even have a standard one over a 1.8 16v. The 2.0 16v is a better car than is made out. Not had a VR so can't compare, one day though
I have had a 1800 16v and a VR6. The 16v I did over 100,000 miles in and the VR6 I did about 40,000 miles in. Both are fairly cheap cars to run infact I did not notice much of a different in fuel costs between the two. The big think to note about the Corrado is it is a heavy car so it is slightly slower that the similar engined Golf. I would have no problems in having a 16v again.
Corrado G60 kerb weight is around 1150 kg iirc? They tend to feel heavier than they actually are to drive imo.
Personally since the guy said he doesnt think he can afford a VR or a G60 then fair enough as there is no fun in being able to buy a car but not afford to run it. My interpretations of the rados are.... G60 - potentially a massive bill when it goes wrong -charger rebuilt? fast in the right gears- no overly revvy, can be tuned to over 200hp though, charger whine :-), the more unusual choice, potentially fit a EATON VR6 - 192hp + top spec rado, awesome cruiser, massive fuel bill everytime you give it some beans, headgasket+chains = big bucks , not fast around town due to long gearing but open roads - omg 3rd gear=110 oh and the NOISE . 1.8 16v - 139 standard - tune to 150ish for little - rev happy and fun to drive, ignore the no torque crap- you just need to learn to drive one properly and use the gears. - 4500 - 7000 RPM is where you want to be to make progress 2.0 16v - 136hp on paper slower than a 1.8 and less power . This is due to 1) the CAT fitted and ignition set up and 2) the lame inlet cam. Swap a KR or ABF inlet cam for a very cheap but very noticable gain. Bags more torque and low down response than a 1.8 but still capable of reving to 7000RPM + 2.0 8v- 115hp = slow as standard compared to all of the above, does have tuning potential but why spend money to tune it to match the 1.8 16v or 2.0 16v? any good?!
I had a nice 1.8 valver for 18 months and the lack of torque literally bored the t*ts off me. Sold it in the end for an 8v Mk2 GTI and never looked back.
all the 16v corrados make more power and torque than an 8v. I had a 2l 16v and i really miss it. In reality quicker than the 1.8 due to mid range torque IMO. Get what you can afford, fantastic cars, bit different to the normal golf. If i had the money I would be going for a VR next time (please read will be going for a VR next time )
it cant have been that nice a 16v if it was slower than a 8v . A standard 8v has NO MORE torque than a 16v at ANY point in the rev range- FACT. FFS if you whine about the lack of torque you must be driving like a taxi driver changing at <3k as every 16v i have owned or driven feels more alive at 4k+ than a 8v at any revs. Do 8v owners not get bored or running out of beans before 6k when a 16v will fly til 7k bare in mind i am comparing STANDARD CARS ONLY so Mr i have a 2.0 8v with P&P head + Cams + 4 branch etc dont bother to tell us how you can whoop your mates standard 16v.
Your points are very valid. But for me a car that does nothing before 4 thousand revs before picking its feet up isn't a nice drive. My Rado was a nice one because i drove 7 others before choosing mine (some higher milers, some lower) and they were all the same. I just didn't like having to thrash it upto 7,000 rpm (which just made me sound and look a right kn*b as those valver engines aren't exactly quiet) just to get a decent turn of speed. I never said my 8v Golf was faster than the Rado though. Just said i never looked back. I live in a city where it is harder to let a 16v stretch it's legs so they feel slow because your usually below the magic 4k. And on the torque front, maybe Rado's do have the same given torque anywhere in the rev range (i don't know) but what you have to consider is the weight of a Rado coupled with the taller gearing kills all that over a lighter snappier Mk2 GTi. In my opinion, and it is only mine, 119 ft lb of torque is just not enough for the 1.8 16v Rado. Each to their own i guess
I have 8v mk2 and mk3 and a 16v Corrado. During the first week I wasn't impressed with the Corrados engine. After getting used to it though, its the engine i'd choose for a fun car. The 8v is ok if you are only driving around town but if your going for a blast on country roads it's got to be 16v. People are focusing on the torque below 4000 rpm but that must count for about 1% of time.
its not that it does nothing before 4k ? thats the part i dont quite get, the only gears that you will find a 16v struggling to pick up in are if youre at 2-3k in 4th or 5th and expecting it to accellerate as much as it would in 1st or 2nd at those gears. Even a 8v would be slow pulling from 2k or 3k in a high gear. I can understand how in busy towns being able to leave it in 3rd at low speeds when in a 16v you might consider 2nd but on more open roads for me anyway the extra usable rev range and peak power of a 16v wins everytime as for 16v corrados i am aware that they have different gear change mechanism cable vs rod in a mk2 but they are still the same. The VR and G60 had different ratio boxes but i believe all 16v are same!
I guess i'm (unfairly?) comparing it to a Renault 19 16v i used to have, which like for like engine wise were similar in the respect that the 19 had 137bhp compared to the Rado's 139, and both were 1.8 litres. But the similarity ended there for me. The Renault picked up from such low revs whereas the C just didn't. My brother in law had a valver Corrado which he had owned from new at the time when i had my 19, and i always ran rings round him. Anyway, i'm digressing here! Thats like comparing chalk and cheese!! To be fair i have only ever driven one 8v GTI and that's the one i have now. But this Golf really does pull from 2k then gets stronger from about 3.5 - 4k. Ok it wont do 7k like a 16v but for me my Golf feels a much quicker point to point car around town than my Corrado. I'm used to Turbo's as well that's the problem. The low down rush you get is what i like and the Corrado was never going to give me that i know. I jumped from the latest GT4 straight to the Corrado so it was doomed from the start i guess. But i'm happy with the little Golf though. As long as the car picks it's feet up when i dab the pedal then i'm happy with that for the moment. The Corrado just never gave me that.
always turns into a 8v vs 16v debate!!! lol It has been said before, and not by myself but i really do agree with it. The age that these cars are, and the potential noobs that have owned them before hand means that in reality the condition of the car at any given price is better to worry about than what engine it has in it.... my personal opinion is this: When i look to buy a car, I will always look to get the top version. As an example I would rather have a top of the range Vectra than the bottom of the bag, high mileage golfs that were available at that price
not so much that but im just one of these people who wish to end the whole 16v lack of torque 8v much faster pulling away argument in order to try and help noobies who dont know any better and help 8v owners come to terms with the fact that they bought the 2nd model down and that they should just get over it and enjoy it for the car it is. Agree with what you are saying about buying the best condition car you can as engines / gearboxes can all be swapped at a later date but rust is a lot more terminal. Id argue the same about millage, corrados are that little bit newer so there are a lot with around 100-120k on them but i wouldnt pay over the odds for one with 120k when there are plenty with 150k that have just as much life left in them. for me the only reason i would want to buy a 8v now is if i wanted to do a VR6 conversion as the wiring is easier but that only applies to mk2 golfs .... for corrados id just buy a 16v/g60 or VR
I keep getting drawn into looking for another car, not sure what to get Audi A4, E36 BMW, something a bit more refined than my mk2 Golf. I love my Golf's and can't wait to get my mk1 back on the road but having been out in my mate's 07 plate BMW 3 series and regularly driving my Dad's Accord I end up looking for a new car. Corrado's seem to always come up trumps, but am torn between another 16v or a VR6. 16v is the sensible decision but then I keep thinking what about an Audi Coupe? Any suggestions? I want refinement, qualit yetc. I want 25,000 cars back in their day for budget money. Any recommendations??
