everyone know that the VW 16v engine is miles behind most of its rival maunfacturers in terms of tuning capability. I drive an 8v because i like prefer them for a daily, however if i was going to build an engine for track use then the VR6 has to be a the top of the list, more power than the 16v out the box, Im sure GVK' VR hasnt had anywhere near the amount of money spent that RobT's valver has. there maybe some 40 hp difference but, its the way it delivers it surely.
My valver is built for torque - 178ft lb thanks and a very broad torque curve - not far behind a VR at all Build one with a 95mm crank and you have vr power and torque for 35kg less weight I have to disagree. There was not much out there to touch it in 1986 (?) when it came out. Since then things have changed obviously and expectedly - unfair to compare it with a duratec or a k-series 200-210 hp can be had out of a valver with high CR pistons, some 280 cams, a flowed head and a pair of carbs. Whats hard about that ? probably 2K. Any more and it gets expensive. How much for a 210hp VR6 install and all the other mods you need to make it handle ?
Thats kinda the way I see it.OK the VR comes with more powerout the box but the money you need to spend to get a good suspension setup and tweak it correctly, and the money spent on the engine to get proper power out of it, because from what I can see, tuning the VR is prob just as hard as the 16v, and its a bit dearer to do so as well, money that could be spent tuning a 16v engine. It's all down to what engine you prefere, of course you can compare a 16v 4 pot to a V6 but can you really?They are 2 totally different engines, and perform nothing like each other.I love high rev'n engines, its alot of fun, and while I haven't had a VR, I have had a couple of Turbo'd cars, which I'm sure gave me experience of mega torque, and I still prefere NA over Turbo.While many say you can't beat the noise from a VR, I dont think you can beat the noise of an NA engine running upto 7.5-8k in a VW, or upto 9600rpm in a Honda with Spoon ECU. I also think tuning a 16v to be the same power as a VR is far more respectable, anyone can just fire in a big engie into a wee car n stand back n say "look, it goes faster now", but not everyone has got a truely well tuned 16v that can beat the VR round a track, and imo, that would mean far more to me than anything else.It's not that theres no skill involved in papping in a big engine, I just feel its the easy way out.It's cheating, taking the shortcut. See when my mate in his EK9 beats Imprezzas n that and they say "whats in that, is it turbo'd" and he replies "nah mate, just a 1.6 NA", there is nothing better than that in the world.You've got someone with their big turbo'd "fast" car that just got tanked off a small engined NA car, and Id rather just say "nah mate, its just a 2.0 16v running 200bhp" than "nah its a 2.8 V6" with my Mk2.While we all know the VR6 isnt excactly pushing out alot of power, at the end of the day, its a 2.8 or 2.9 in some cases, V6.To oudsiders that would give them getouts as to why they got wasted on the track or road, whereas a 1.8-2.0 4pot just leaves them confused and scratching their heads lol
c'mon now Rob, you advocate the valver lump, others (including me) prefer the VR. I would be the first to admit that the engine has is faults, its not a very efficient engine for one, the power it produces for its capacity is a little poor. But, as you have written, your engine is built for torque, and thats what gives the VR its edge IMO. Also, all the things that are said about the weight aren't quite hitting the nail on the head, the engine does weigh more, but its the placement of the weight thats the issue, not it being significantly heavier - the 4 cylinder engines are canted backwards to a reasonable degree, putting the weight behind the axle line; the VR is leaning forwards and the weight is in front of the axle line. For what you use your ibiza for, you wouldnt ever choose a VR lump, that much is as obvious as it is logical, but for the purposes of a fun car that gets used on roads and occasional track use, a VR can be an effective powerplant, and as for making it handle, the same mods that are done to a valver engined car have the same effects on one with a VR lump, from my experience making it handle well isnt an issue As a postscript to the headline question, 180 is obtainable for a very reasonable amount of money from what has been evident from postings on this forum over the years, creeping up towards the 200 mark becomes a little bit more expensive both in the parts needed and the knowledge required to get the most from the sum of the parts
cumon now rob what - nearly every time someone on here asks how to get power from a valver, we always get the dont waste your time, stick a VR in line of discussion. Welcome to the flipside. it was the same with throttle body mods in the past....I was always waiting for the tb's are not woth the money load of old guff the valver is a cracking engine that responds very well to 'traditional' tuning methods and without resorting to engine transplants that are often no where near as cheap as they appear your dead right I wouldn't use a VR - asthmatic lump that it is - I have more torque from my valver than I can deploy without spinning 9" slicks even with an LSD fitted - why would I want more and give myself more understeer in the process ? If I wanted torque, then a tuned TDI is the answer........but 4wd would be needed to harness it
a very good figure, well done, but in your words, 'its behind the VR' The 20XE came out shortly after, 157bhp! VW[:^(] GVK how much have you spent on converting yours to a VR How much have you spent on suspension? as norman says the money would get spent regardless of engine, with the VR it may take more consideration and time to get it setup up. Im not having a pop before any starts getting defensive.. Im have read this thread and if the target is 180 - 200bhp and the car is an early 8v, I would opt for the VR6, but that is my preference, and in my case i would be doing the spannering, electrics etc
Its not all about torque though is it ? if it was then diesels would rule in all forms of sport, which they dont (yet). What you need is torque AND a wide operating window AND as little mass as possible. Valvers do well on all these counts - which is why they are used for racing and big heavy atmo V6's arn't (generally) - if you have the drivetrain and environment to take more torque then turbos are a better bet IMO But of course this is only my opinion......
This I can understand - replace an 8V engine with a more efficient 16V But to replace a 16V with a less efficient 2V/cyl 6 pot I dont understand, not for a trackday car, for a road car......possibly see the logic
Its not all about torque, and different types of motorsport will suit different engines. I was trying to answer the question looking at the point of view of starting with and 86 8v. the other option that people seem to be missing is forced induction.. but thats another debate.
AlexF2003, What correlation/study have you done to come up with these targets. How do you know that this method is a solution to making your vehicle faster around a circuit, or more responsive on the road? Or are these targets just any round number that sounds faster. Motorbike ITBs and MS 2 suggest that you are trying to perform this as inexpensive as possible.
Targets are based on performance of my Golf (approx 120-130bhp) and NigeG's Golf (approx 150bhp) at the NurburgRing. Not sure if you have been there but at one point it is seriously up hill for about 3kms and I would like to pull more than 100mph up there. Previous cars I have taken managed this but they all had much more power (and less handeling LOL). TBs and MS2 are possible as they are lieing around and this is a budget project - I have a 500 bhp scooby to spend really money as/if I wish. They are also parts I am familar with as I have used them many times before. Alex
I've said almost exactly the same as you Rob, the VR is indeed an asthmatic air pump, with older 2v technology, there are loads of reasons why you wouldnt choose that engine should 200bhp be the aim. Tuning costs money, especially if you cant do it yourself - if I remember from my own research, the costs of getting circa 200 ponies from a valver lump ran v close to that of a VR transplant, and then you are at the end of a reasonable return on your investment with regards to bhp to . I personally wouldnt advocate TB's as the way to go, and that is because I think they are very costly for the return in bhp terms, but that is only my opinion - I love the sound and everything about them, just not the negatives
howabouts we look at bhp/power/tuning vs everyday usability. get an na 16v to c.200bhp and i imagine youll have a highly strung engine, which isnt particularly flexible in the way youd need for everyday use due to cams etc where as a c.200bhp vr6, i would expect would be perfectly tractable as it wont be so "tuned" therefore, (in theory), for an everyday c.200bhp a higher capacity vr6 might be better. still wont stop me doing the "traditional" things to my abf though
I run a 1900cc valver in my MK1 track car and it has around 160hp flywheel, measured 130hp with a G Tech RR logger (maybe more on an RR). The engine runs Audi 2.2L pistons 10.5:1 CR and a flowed head with 276 cams. It eats vr's for breakfast at the ring not up kesselchen admittedly I only get 110mph up there (lack of torque and bricklike aero). Everwhere else my car out handles and accelerates vr6 based kit. As for daily use my car is tractable and useable everyday I've done so with no issues. Not looking to get shot here just giving my opinion based on my own experiance. If your looking for fun then 16v is the way to go much nicer to drive than the nose heavy VR conversions. But as they it's horses for courses.... The VR is a terrible engine for head flow due to its narrow V angle, with a dissapointing power to size ratio in std form.
i cant remember what mine acheives on gtech but im actually going to be running so plots on it over the next couple nights to see how its delivering power at the moment
I'd imagine that people are talking about the 12v VR6 due to costs of the engine i.e. you can pick the engine up for 150-300, whereas the 24v is gonna be a bit dearer than that.I'm not entirely clued up on the VR's but did the 24v only come in the Mk4 onwards? Therefor the chances of picking up one of these engines for less that 500 would be a bit slim?I dont know, I could be mega mega wrong here.But to me, the only advantage the VR6 12v has is that theyt are pennies to pick up, hence the reason why they are so "common"
Look at the pages of results from things like GTI International, or Retro Show, and they'll certainly reveal whats actually fast and what's bull. There seems to be a lot of "internet horsepower" on this forum.
