Hi peeps, Quick question, I've heard from a few sources that the vr6 engine in the form of 2.9 litre is less reliable than the 2.8 block, is this right, whats more reliable and a better engine? 2.8 or 2.9, thanks taz
Not sure about reliable but i would of thought the 2.9 is better as it has 190bhp compares to 170bhp from the 2.8 Why not go for the 2.8 24v? 200bhp
Because the electrics make it a harder conversion. Tarnbir, the later OBD2 engines (2.8) seem to make similar power to the 2.9 Corrado engine. They are the best to go for if you cant find a nice low mileage 2.9 engine. However, there are other differences. The gearbox ratios are different in the 2.9 as its aimed at being more of a sports car, the Golf was and always will be a motorway mile muncher. No complaints from my 2.8 engine though, it produced 196bhp @ 4993 and 210 lb ft @ 4026 and its standard. But my old Jetta VR6 which had the 2.9 engine and loads of more work done only made 210bhp and 196 lb ft.
it could really also depend on how well looked after the engine was as to how reliable it was, also there's nowt wrong with my 2.8..
To be honest i drove my VR6 before i purchased it (OBD2) and a Rado VR6 on the same day and the difference seemed to be negligable between the two. Preferred the corrado for looks etc but the Golf has only done 50K instead of the 114K the Rado had
I'd heard something about the 2.9 having problems with cylinder no. 6 after 100k or so. Might be testicles but it sounds like the sort of rumour you've heard. Fordo!
i thnk you'll find the UK gearboxes are the same in 'rado and golf...was only US that had different ratios.
I heard something similar think they were telling me about it being very thin on that side of the block. But saying that there was a 3.1 VR in Golf+ the other month, cant remember if that was rebored or not though?
That's right. I remember now. It was said that VW had pushed the block as far as is poss, and that overhauling it was not possible/practical, so a new one was required... Then again, I've never heard aything about it since. I wouldn't want a high miler 2.9 just in case. Cant you put a Galaxy/Sharan block in or something so it can be bored out to higher capacity? Or is that just the same as a VR mk3/rado one? Fordo!
Hi, thanks peeps, the reason i asked was i was looking to buy a 2.9 litre converted mk2 golf, and i don't know much about this engine, ive been offered both 2.8s and 2.9s but have heard from nearby sources that the 2.9 feels slower than the 2.8 and is less reliable etc, etc, just thought id double check b4 purchase, thanks again taz
Phatvr6 where are you?, He always had the 2.9 and seemed to do ok with it. Tim Styles did a conversion for the 2.9 and bored it out to a 3.1. It was the 2.8 that couldn't reach that capacity.
Oh ok, so the 2.9 is a bigger block than the 2.8? What the the 2.8 be bored out to then? Is it still true that the 2.9 has a thinner block wall than the 2.8? The 3.1 was that just reboring or longer stroke aswell? Cheers, Andy
sounds like the old "8v are quicker round town and twisty roads" line to me or maybe "mk2 VR's don't handle" i'd stick with 2.9 everytime. unless i could get 3.2 of course.
hi, Can i confirm that theyre isnt really much in it then,. both engines have similar reliability, is there anything in particular i need to check on these engine to see if they are running right etc, any servicing required etc, the 2.9 im looking at moment has just done nearly 109k on the engine, thanks taz
You see, I'm now gonna get shot down for this, but I'd be hesitant at that mileage for a 2.9. Even if that rumour is rubbish, it'd still niggle at the back of my mind. Fordo!