Good point about the limited forgot about that! But the cost of the fuel injection components may have been too great for the normal production run MK2 16v My point still stands about the 2.0 16vs though, they were pretty underpowered (from a consumer point of view). If VW could have used digifant injection without driving the costs up too much I'm sure they would have, 136BHP doesn't look as good as 150BHP on paper (to a customer) My point about the injectors still stands also, I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying there arnt many about. My points are purely from VW manufacturing/retail point of view, not modding I'd also assume this type of injector is usually more expensive, and way back in 88-92 this may have been too high for a production VW At the end of the day we can only speculate to the reasons behind the desision not to use digital fuel injection on the 16v, I'm just thinking out loud really. Edit: I also have to add that these points were stated as a retort to 'the reason VW didnt use EFI in the MK2 16v is because it's cr@p'. EFI is NOT cr@p Edit2: Another thing I thought of, perhaps the reason VW didn't go with EFI in the 1.8 16v was becasue they didnt want to spend the development time mapping the ECU, Perhaps looking into the future VW knew they were binning the 1.8 16v in favour of the 2.0 units, and decided to work on the injection map for those instead. Couse they also binned the 1.8 GTI lump as well, I can only speculate again that perhaps the inj map for the 2.0 was very similar, or was the 1.8 lump used in another VAG car? SA MK1 Citi? China? Oh I don't know Edit3: Oh and another thing! If VW thought EFI was so cr@p, why bother putting it in the 8v at all? They didn't put it in the 16v, so they could have left it off the 8v as well. Would have saved alot of money developing parts like the digifant fuel pump & lines for a start, plus ECU maps, new sensors etc.
In Europe Passat and Corrado cars had the higher output G60 and later ones the VR6. The 2.0 16v was a middle of the range engine. So consumers had choice. In the US MK2 the 127bhp PL 16v was "uprated to" 134BHP 9A engine. Well you if are not modding, why the need to change them if they are good to 180BHP due to the flow rate quoted and other factors which were not qouted. No need to assume. If the side feed unit ( came out 2E 8vs and ABF motors) was "more expensive" then they could have used a similar injector rail and convetional top feed injectors as seen on the Audi 20v 5clyinder cars. It could have been done but was not nesscessary at the time. Fact is, before we stray off topic, the overall package you can get with a later Mk2 8v GTi Golf is better than the older cars, having own both versions.
True, but the better body rusting on the post '86 cars and better head corrosion on the mexican cylinder head cars, is not an advantage to me personally.
Someone said this to me recently. That the older cars were built better not that my 91 Mark 2 car is rusting. Never had a problem with the cylinder heads though as I always use G12 or later G12 plus.
My point was that the special injectors required to fit in the 16v manifold might have been too expensive back in 88-92 to justify fitting to the MK2 Golf/Corrado/Passat, therefore only the 8vs got EFI becaused they could use a relitively cheap & common injector. By the time the MK3s came out they may have gone down in price? Who knows I'm just discussing about why, in 1988 when the 8v was converted to digi, the 16v wasn't. Mexicorich is saying becasue VW didn't 'like' EFI for whatever reason, and I'm just trying to come up with other reasons Can YOU think of any reasons why this would be? I serously doubt the reason was that VW thought EFI was cr@p
I think it all comes down to cost Jon. Around '86 VW started doing several things differently(outsourcing to mexico, base metal quality, etc). The Porsche 944 8v used a system similar to the Digi since 1982. It is fair to say the 8v Digi offered nothing in performance terms w.r.t. the 8v K-Jet, there has to be another driving factor. Cost reduction was very common in the '80's TBH too (de-nationalisation anyone?)... VW didn't stop with cost reduction in the '80's tho, MK4 anyone?
Engineering (read K-Jet metal machining) costs money, whereas software, and sensors made in China....
what has this guy started??!! get whatever you want mate, and b@ll@cks to everyone else! oh, and a cat on a mk2 is very rare, they (if i recall the mk2 guide in golf+ a few months back) were actually retro-fitted to very late mk2's and come with a different engine code, i.e not PB!
thanks for that, was unsure of the cat?? i didnt really expect it to get like this Cheers for all of the imput though!! much appreciated!
Maybe the 8v digi was a test to see if VW could produce a car running electronic injection that could perform as well as one running a mechanical injection? Who knows, maybe they had so many problems adapting it for the 8v that they just didn't bother with it for the 16v? Its unlikely, but possible, that they had already started work on deisgning the abf engine for the mk3 and therefore wanted to hold back electronic injection on 16v's (the flag ship hot hatch of the time). So many possible reasons. I'd be very surpised if marketing and sales didn't play some part in the decision making at VW. I've owned 2 digi's and 2 k-jets. I prefer the k-jet from a "this is easier to set up/fix" point of view, but have never looked for just k-jet 8v's (both my 8v's ran digi). I did have a problem with the air flow meter/sensor failing and the ecu being fried on the first one as a result, but bother replaced for 30, and both had covered 120,000+ miles.
`86 K-Jet all day long!! Much better then my `92 Digi was, even when it had all the probs ironed out and was running mint! Just done the tappets and cam belt on my `86 and it`s running smooth, sweet and strong! Loving it!!
Bosch Motronic has been around since the early 80s at least, so would definitely have been an option for VW - fitted to Audis, Porsches, etc. May have still been a bit expensive at that time, as it was fairly new. Digifant's other advantage (from the manufacturing process + piece cost perspective) is that it's low pressure, which means cheaper fuel pumps, lower spec fuel lines, and less chance of leaks at the end of the manufacturing process. Also, the fuel rail, ECU and ISV probably works out a lot cheaper than the combined cost of ECU, WUR, CSV, braided high pressure fuel lines, metering head, etc... as already suggested. I'm really enjoying my kjet rocco, but I've read long long nightmare threads on here of people who just couldn't get Kjet valvers to run right... pigbladder in particular had one about a year ago, which springs to mind. So Kjet can be very reliable, but get it full of dirty fuel and it's a PITA.
Dirty water is like a steak throught the heart Take your filler neck off Mike and look at it They crack and split at the top and back on a Sirocco where you can't see until the wet weather comes and then its too late.... Make sure the filler neck is fine ad it'll still be sweet in another twenty years time Kjet Scirocco - lighter and more aerodynamic than any Golf - a car I do like! (although a bit cramped for anyone big)
