Whats best, 2.8 or 2.9 vr6 engine...?

Discussion in 'General Vehicle Chat' started by Tarnbir, Mar 2, 2005.

  1. Tarnbir Forum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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
     
  2. Imran Forum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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 ;) [:D]
     
  3. Deako Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    133
    Location:
    ReddiWraps
    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.
     
  4. gti8v Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Can see the NY moors!
    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.. [:D]
     
  5. vealige Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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 :lol:
     
  6. cforehead Forum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Barnstaple, North Devon
    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![:D]
     
  7. AndrewF Forum Addict

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Milton Keynes
    i thnk you'll find the UK gearboxes are the same in 'rado and golf...was only US that had different ratios.
     
  8. AndyCEB Forum Junkie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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?
     
  9. cforehead Forum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Barnstaple, North Devon


    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!:)
     
  10. Imran Forum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Theres a green mk3 down croydon way with a 2.8 24v engine with a supercharger on it! :clap: :clap: :clap:
     
  11. Atlas 12v Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    A brand new 2.9 Block is only about 900 quid from VAG...
     
  12. muppet Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    England
    Only? :o
     
  13. cforehead Forum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Barnstaple, North Devon


    Cheap at half the price:lol:. Whats the deal with the 2.9 then TT? Is the rumour testicles?



    Fordo!
     
  14. Tarnbir Forum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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
     
  15. rick1.8t Forum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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. ;)
     
  16. AndyCEB Forum Junkie

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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 :)
     
  17. DEX

    Dex Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Likes Received:
    497
    Location:
    United Kingdom

    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.
     
  18. Deako Paid Member Paid Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2003
    Likes Received:
    133
    Location:
    ReddiWraps
    Or unless you happen to have my 2.8 engine!!! ;)
     
  19. Tarnbir Forum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    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
     
  20. cforehead Forum Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Barnstaple, North Devon


    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!:)
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice