they were official VW graphs i've driven a lot of mk2 golfs, 8v and 16v, and owned a few too - the 16v is quicker.
Don`t believe it then, I was going from the VW produced graphs.. if a stock 8v nails a stock 16v then the bloke in the valver obviously can`t drive.
As I remember the VW graphs dont have power/torque crossing @ 5252rpm which kinda makes them innaccurate... ...but a well driven 16v will nail a well driven 8v every time..
not suggesting any one is telling fibs or that an 8v is quicker than a 16v every time. speaking from pure experience and not figures read on a piece of paper, i do not believe that a 16v has as much if not more power than an 8v. i've driven them and my belief is that a 1.8 8v produces more power low down than a 1.8 16v. on paper a mk2 16v has a better power to wieght ratio than my old mk1 1.8 8v. there never has or will be a standard mk2 16v that can out gun a standard mk1 in anything other than top end speed.
IMO the 8v "feels" more punchy, especially lower down, but this is mainly down to the fact that its power delivery is more linear, & tails off @ 5Krevs. The 16v feels flatter low down, but then opens up at the top end..
A mate of mine`s just bought a 16V Vectra, he swears his 8v Sierra was faster, can`t get used to working the engine higher up. At the end of the day it`s what suites you best, the day I was a passenger in a well driven 16v sealed it for me. I overtook an 8v at 90mph, were were both giving it some, either he bottled it (unlikely) or the valver came into it`s own?. Now I`ve G60`d mine and it`s torque from 2k up, or at least it was until the G started making nasty noises [:^(]
