Is this Correct???????!!!!!!

I have bought a Classics in colour VW Golf GTi book and the stats for the mk2 GTis are 8valve 0-60 in 8.3 and 16 valve 0-60 in 8.5 is this correct as the 16 valve has 27 more BHP???????????? I was gonna swap my 8v engine for 16v but maybe I wont if this is the case.

Thanks

 

8v has more torque

(opens can of worms and runs like the wind lol)

 

BHP sells engines, torque wins races

 

hahaha

 

Time to play wiv the 8 valve!

What do u suddgest I do to my 8v kjet then to get more power??

 

2.0 bottom end, have a look in the faq in the engines section and learn all you need to know

 

that was when it was new

add a couple of seconds on that for the tired and worn remaining examples of mk2s.

 

they get faster as the engines loosen up

 

nice, subjective old wives tale

but any engine when it reaches a certain point of wear will decrease in its specified performance. Not a debatable opinion, fact.

 

Mk2 GTi 8v does not do 0-60 in 8.3 sec. And most nicely running 16v's do 0-60 in the late 7's.
If doing a conversion, fit a 2.0L if you can.

Gurds

 

Correct! It`s much quicker!


Well mine is anyway! (Only got a K+N panel filter and custom exhaust.)


Matt82:

 

Pah - A lot of people who take the time to ensure a mk2 is well tuned and running right find bhp figures are still stock or sometimes better.

 

Well when the golf 5 GTI was released in South Africa our local car mag did a little re-cap on past GTI's. and the results as far as i can remember were

1.8 8v non-executive 0-100 Kph 8.73
1.8 16v non-executive 0-100 Kph 8.02
the 16v standing KM time was a low 29 sec

Thats with the normal test set up(ie: 2 people,full tank and test equipment)
Thats from memory so forgive any mistakes,also bare in mind these are SA cars tested in SA so there might be slight differances,not sure.

 

no it doesn't

 

Sure it's not you that's tired and worn?

 

nope!

mk2 gti 8v has the amount of torque as my mk3 driver

 

is it a driver wiv cam?

 

theres very few low mileage, well looked after mk2s left

i witness first hand the huge surge in 2nd mk2 sales in the early 90s just after the mk3 was phased in.

even then after less than 10yrs, most i saw were used & abused, let alone another 15yrs on!

 

err... well my standard 8v that i have now goes better than ANY of the 16v's i've had. All of them were painstakingly set up correctly, so there are no excuses on that level. I wouldn't be suprised if alot of 8v's, providing they are set up right, can match a 16v to 60, and certainly do it in 8.3 (if a valver can do it in the late 7's)


I remember reading a shootout in PVW that a local club had, and there was little difference between the 8v's and 16v's to 60, some were quicker than others.

Fact is, there is little difference in town driving. I would prefer a 16v on the motorway, as i think it comes alive a bit higher up.

I sold my 16v over the 8v i have, as the 8v goes better. I have a test road near me, a section of uphill straights with roundabouts, and the 8v will hit 92-ish between them. The best 16v i ever had could only hit about 87. I have always been dissapointed with 16v's, and i've always felt like the gearing of the car lets it down, almost like it doesn't match the power band as well as it does the 8v.

Not worth going from 1.8 8v to 1.8 16v. Switching to a 2.0 16v though, thats a different matter.

 

even most mk3s on the market are utter dogs... have you seen the thread on mk3 abs brakes? the number of cars with butchered electronics to cover up brake issues is annoying... i have one of them!