Just for the record these are the VW figures as from the 1987 brochure so this is when they were both on K-jet. Clearly 8.3 for 8v NOT 9 as some keep saying... Dan
I am not too sure but doesn't the 8v have a longer 2nd gear? That would help the 1/4 mile times. Also the area under the power curve in the useable range is what you are looking for...not the peak power....and there are some fairly big RPM drops in the VW boxes so the useable range is fairly wide....hence the 8v low down power helping a little. Interestingly at the recent Mk2 GTi series testing the fastest 8v was only 0.5 sec a lap off the fastest 16v.
good to hear, although I heard his clutch was slipping a little and could easily have shaved say, 0.6 sec off that time....
This should be saved by everyone so that future threads like this can always be ended without getting nasty!
probably of the mark, and maybe even up to 25-30, 8vs may be as quick as (no way quicker) than a 16v, but thats about yer lot. i was getting between 20-25mpg round town but on m'way crusing at 70, was easily getting 40+mpg. thats only probably a short 50 mile run, on longer runs just plodding along between 65-70mph, 45+ was easy. and for those of you who think i got a dodgy mfa, i write down my miles, fuel in money & galls then calculate my mpgs myself!!
Good info on that brochure - Mexicorich will be along in a minute, to point out that 8v time is for a KJet car, and digis are much slower )
Your 16v clearly wasn't running right. 2.0 16v makes a hell of a difference to driveability and feel though.
I recently bought a scirocco with 154k on the clock. It uses no oil, starts first time and averages 37mpg. As far as I can tell from the history, it's never been rebuilt. It's had a couple of women owners for long periods, which might also explain why the gearbox doesn't crunch, although it will soon
My 8v K-Jet has done 130,000 miles and still pulls very strongly. It`s been on the rollers a few times. A couple of times it was slightly out of tune and only ran 98-100bhp. I was still pretty happy with that, considering it is 21 years old. One of the runs I did was after it had been properly set-up and it ran 110bhp. Only lost 2 horses in 21 years? Not bad IMO! Here`s the graph for one of the `out of tune` runs. Still quite smooth:
Has anyone got a brochure for the 8v digi? Pretty sure its more lazy than the k-jet. Ian, you are right, the 8v 2nd is longer. Performance engineered gti's are a different matter as both can be made to give good outputs. Argument is over factory cars. Gurds
i was tired and thats the excuse im sticking too silly question, but does anyone here have the results of a standard 8v and a standard 16v both being run on the same rollers on the same day to compare the differences between the plots? i think we all know that the 8Vs are a touch slower, but from the plots ive seen the 8Vs torque plot tails off soon after 5krpm where as the 16V sustains pretty consistent torque until after 6k.... so it appears you get an extra 1000rpm of 'go' in the 16V.
And that is why a 16v has more torques than an 8v. It just reaches peak torque very high up the rev range (on the club rr day my max torque output was at 6700rpm and max bhp at 6895rpm or something like that.)
I'm just pointing out that all i've ever owned are 16v's, and i actually sold a 16v over the 8v i now have, as it whips around town much better than any of the 16v's i've had. there is no doubt that once you hit 4.5k the 16v is off, whereas the 8v is running out of puff, but i always felt the 16v was flat in fourth gear. Get it going really well in 3rd, revving it nearly to the redline, select 4th, and there's no power. This was more of a problem on uphill over taking sections. I just find the 8v delivers it's power better. And to be honest i don't reckon there would be much between the 8v i now own and any of the 16v's i've had. Remember that a higher BHP figure doesn't always equal a quicker 0-60. The engines have similar torque figures. by the way....167bhp on a standard KR?
Well im certainly no expert on these matters....but. I have had 2 8v digi's and my friend has had 2 16v k-jets. We are fairly sure the 16v is a bit quicker mid and top range speeds. My 8v certainly keeps up with it through towns and sometimes he has to keep up with me, 8v seems to have more grunt through the streets, bends and up's and downs. He fights to find the power and ends up changing gear every 2 seconds. Plus the k-jet is a hell of alot more thursty and he has had prblems with setup and getting it to run right, also alot more probs with the engine in general. digi's just seems a bit more reliable. 16v imo not worth what alot of people pay for them. But i think i would like one of each
The 16v's make good money because they are the "top of the range" engine, so more desireable. Like a lot of people, I try and always buy the "top" model, because otherwise I'll spend the rest of the time I own the car thinking about an engine swap! Oh and just for the record, PhilHall's near standard 8v got three more torquepowers than my standard valver on a recent rolling road day......
I'll be selling my 8v in the next few months and having the option of another 8v or a 16v I'm going down the route of another 8v which i'll be doing the 2.0 bottom end swap on. As said, I just prefer the power delivery of the 8v motor when set up right even though round a track I know the 16v would have the kudos.
And thats what it comes down to really, the delivery of the power, and application of the power through the wheels to generate road speed. My KR has an exhaust system on it and K-star mapping, and I really miss not driving it after a week...
