We always end up harping back to the same arguments dont we... The only thing that makes an 8v digi better than a 16v k-jet is the fact that the 8v digi knows what 40-45mpg looks like whilst the 16v k-jet rarely knows what 35mpg is. An 8v is NOT quicker than a 16v. ITS JUST NOT! Why do 8v owners constantly kid themselves that they are? I own both, and the 8v digifant just has nothing, and I mean nothing at all on a propperly set up 16v..... and if I were choosing between an 8v and a 16v for motorway use it would be an 8v everytime. Unless you need to go everywhere at 125mph instead of 115mph there isn't much difference in top speed really, but there will be a differance of about 10mpg! http://www.golfgti.co.uk/viewfeature_content.asp?featureID=11 - one site of many that outlines the stock figures I have seen showing the 16v as a second quicker. Top Gear did a test between a small bumpered 16v and a big bumpered 16v when VW produced the "face lift" model in 89/90 and the small bumpered 16v won by a car length and a half, because the engine was "looser" and they made the point that GTI's did get quicker as the engine loosened up. I'd also point out that 16v's generally perform better, on the road, and on paper after a head gasket change, cam chain change, and deep skim to lower comperssion of the head, which can add to performance. I've had many a conversations regarding life span of an engine and longitivity of engine. My 16v is testiment to that. 133,000 miles, head gasket change @ 125,000 miles, an exhaust system and panel filter and 167bhp and 133lb ft.... thats not bad going really is it
WCRado, is your 8v k-jet by any chance? Or is it a digi? There are no hills where I live so maybe that has a lot to do with it. Shorter gearing does help the 16v no end too. But anyway, back to the point, those figures quoted in the 1st post don't sound correct. Factory figures are usually 8 secs for a 16v and 9 secs for an 8v. Gurds
Yep. All my dads old Volkswagen Audi Car magazines say that all over them, i trust that VAG are right with their figures. The db is very right there tbh. The old 1991 edition of Top Gear with good old Quentin Wilson showed that once the engine had done a fair mileage, it stomped the brand spanking new one. Admitedly, that could be fiddled, but i doubt it, its Quentin!
And as i pointed out already, these figure almost certainly don't apply to the remaining mk2's who's engines have seen their best days.
Have you ever fantasized about making love to your mother? What is your earliest memory? Have you tortured an animal at any stage of your life? All engines gain power with use to a certain point, and then it begins to drop down again. Having pulled apart many VW engine with over 150k on the clock and seen no dramatic bore wear, zero cam wear and fine compression (plus the fact that by this age most will have had the head done, so the valves are still sealing nicely), I see no reason why they shouldn't put out more power than a new engine which is still tight as hell and running itself in. AND, 1.3s are faster than 16vs.
Nope, plenty of scrappers here as well! But an engine which has been serviced regularly is likely to be in good condition, even if the body is scrap. I have a 3A engine in the garage with 180k on it, and the crosshatch marks are still very visible. It also gave compression figures of 185psi plus/minus 3 when I yanked it out. If looked after, they are very long lasting engines.
thats the key no doubt problem is down here, we have some stingy and ignorant car owners who'd rather skip a few service.
I'm sure it's the same here, I don't know if there is a real difference in car care. But I rarely see a Golf which has been scrapped due to engine wear - and I spend most weekends messing around in a VW breakers yard. I would think that yank VW engines would last longer due to their ingrained belief that oil should be changed every 3000 miles, but that doesn't seem to be true. They still die around 300k.
I agree with the "running in" argument, in addition to this later cars are heavier due to all the std. fitment toys like leccy windows, PAS, sunroof, bumpers etc, as well as reputidly having a less aggressive ignition advance which will hurt the power a bit. My 16v has 155k on the clock, is rotten, smokes and rattles, but has good compression when hot and still feels lively. I'd hazard a guess that it's still very close to the factory figures, if not a bit more.
Idiot. A Torque is a singular thing - therefore an 8v has more "torques", not just more "torque". It's not as if it's a unit of measurement or anything. I have 1 torque, you have 3 torques. 16v's have the same number of torques as an 8v. And more horses powers.
