# 1.8t vs 2.0t. with mods which is better?



## champlemmy (Nov 1, 2011)

hey guys, I know this has probably been asked a million times but I can seem to get a clear cut answer and searching google is not cutting it. I am interested in getting a new car. looking at the 02+ 1.8t jetta or 06 2.0t jetta. i do want to do mods to the car . the max is bring it to apr stage 2 chip, dp+cat,intake. budget is also an issue so what im trying to say is if I were to do these mods to a mk4 jetta,how much more would it cost to do the same setup to a 2.0t. will the hp/tq #'s be nearly the same or would a 2.0t blow by the 1.8t in a 0-60 and 1/4m? thanks guys your opinion would be great, even suggestion like which one would be more reliable when mods are put on etc.


----------



## killa (Nov 26, 2000)

champlemmy said:


> hey guys, I know this has probably been asked a million times but I can seem to get a clear cut answer and searching google is not cutting it. I am interested in getting a new car. looking at the 02+ 1.8t jetta or 06 2.0t jetta. i do want to do mods to the car . the max is bring it to apr stage 2 chip, dp+cat,intake. budget is also an issue so what im trying to say is if I were to do these mods to a mk4 jetta,how much more would it cost to do the same setup to a 2.0t. will the hp/tq #'s be nearly the same or would a 2.0t blow by the 1.8t in a 0-60 and 1/4m? thanks guys your opinion would be great, even suggestion like which one would be more reliable when mods are put on etc.


all things equal the 2.0t IMO


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

IMO the 1.8t...


----------



## MKIII_96 (Nov 25, 2006)

the 2.0t wil probably be faster, but not by much because it has to haul that fat jetta around. and the problem with the 2.0t is the intake valves will eventually be covered in carbon because of the direct injection, but you probably dont have to worry about that until 100k miles, and since you want the 06 model, it probably has the cam driven fuel pump where the follower wears out, but thats covered until 130k by vw.

IMO i think the 1.8t has less problems and is probably more reliable if maintained correctly. the 2.0t has more potential for high horsepower because of the bigger displacement and a better flowing head.


----------



## 20thAEGti1009 (Jan 28, 2005)

*FV-QR*

All things equal the 2.0t will absolutely walk the 1.8t. But if you ever plan on doing a turbo upgrade I would go with the 1.8t


----------



## StuMacLean (Aug 9, 2003)

What MKIII_96 said. 

2.0T FSI has cam follower issues, but it is manageable with good oil levels and replacing followers. Lots and tons of threads on the topic over in the 2.0 FSI forum. 

Intake valve deposits are real, but they haven't (knock on wood) been shown to create major problems. I've got 97k and never done anything about it. 

A stage 2+ 2.0FSI is a quick car, and has way more power than an equivalent 1.8T. 

If you are going huge turbo etc. I'd say 1.8T, if you're staying subtle mods maybe a 2.0FSI is better. 

2.0 TSI (2008+ish) is a very nice motor. Cam follower issue goes away, less fueling upgrades required, and the cars were a few years into production so a lot of little annoying issues had been resolved. The 2006 models were a little buggy still. Just early production stuff, but I'd urge you to get a 07' or 08' model if possible.


----------



## champlemmy (Nov 1, 2011)

20thAEGti1009 said:


> All things equal the 2.0t will absolutely walk the 1.8t. But if you ever plan on doing a turbo upgrade I would go with the 1.8t


really? walk over a 1.8t? i have no intentions of getting a bigger turbo. so would a stage 2 with tbe and intake be equal to the 2.0t with just a chip then?. my other question would be is the 2.0t are about an extra 3k so if i got an mk4 I would have a little more money to put into it, could I make it alot faster then a 2.0t. my main concern here is also reliability when these mods are put up, I would think an 06-08 would be more reliable then a 01-04 just because of age.


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

i never got walked by any 2.0t's on stock turbo. go with the 1.8t


----------



## StuMacLean (Aug 9, 2003)

You could probably get a decent idea of power gains by just cruising the options on APRs website. I know that other brands can do other things and blah blah blah, but for a reference APR is fine. 

There's about a 40-50 hp and torque difference on simply chipped engine's. You can expect that delta to remain or likely increase as you further mod the engines. Not advocating either direction, just sharing some info.


----------



## 20thAEGti1009 (Jan 28, 2005)

Big_Tom said:


> i never got walked by any 2.0t's on stock turbo. go with the 1.8t


I call bull**** on this. I've owned both and a chipped 2.0t will destroy a chipped 1.8t. My 1.8t made 200whp with a chip and full exhaust. My 2.0t made like 245whp with just a chip and downpipe.

I raced my buddies 1.8t with the exact same mods I had done to my 2.0t and put like 6 cars on him.


----------



## champlemmy (Nov 1, 2011)

thanks for all the info everyone, really helpful. I think I am leaning towards 1.8t. If anyone would like to convince me otherwise go right ahead, want all the input possible. I did look at the apr site and what a difference between the stage 1 1.8 and 2.0. chip for chip the 2.0 make 50 hp and 50tq more then 1.8t. The main thing for me is that I dont really like the exterior of the mkv jetta maybe it will grow on me but for now it just looks to mature. plus just to get a mkv will probably cost me 3k more than the mk4 and with that money I could do mods. its safe to say from looking at that site that with the chip the 2.0 is much faster even though it weighs a bit more. tough call for me. dont really thing i would get as far as to putting in a bigger turbo, the max i would do to the 1.8t is max out stage2 with reccomneded hardware (dp,intake,exhaust,i/c, etc), dont kno if all that would equal to a 2.0t with just a chip (250hp/300tq) is pretty impressive.


----------



## DMACK (Dec 5, 2003)

This thread comes down to relevance. The money you save going with a mk4 1.8T can easily be used to upgrade your power gains and walk a stock 2.0t. Imho My mk4 jetta Gli is the best car i have ever owned reliability and comfort wise. I debated a mk5 but went big turbo on my gli. Walk that with your chipped 2.0T. 

The mk5 is a nice looking car but you leave some nice room to make your car what you want if you go mk4.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

20thAEGti1009 said:


> I call bull**** on this. I've owned both and a chipped 2.0t will destroy a chipped 1.8t. My 1.8t made 200whp with a chip and full exhaust. My 2.0t made like 245whp with just a chip and downpipe.
> 
> I raced my buddies 1.8t with the exact same mods I had done to my 2.0t and put like 6 cars on him.


:bs:...6 cars my ass...your full of sh_t! Dont take offense but without pics it didn't happen


----------



## bootymac (Apr 19, 2005)

If only I could have the Mk5 engine and chassis with a Mk4 body


----------



## mescaline (Jul 15, 2005)

According to Jeremy Clarkson, MKIV GTI was the worst Golf ever produced and he "thought Golf would be dead after MKIV but MKV saved it" 

He is pretty much right. MKIV is the slowest of all Golfs tho'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjoDRI1ppXk


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

20thAEGti1009 said:


> I call bull**** on this. I've owned both and a chipped 2.0t will destroy a chipped 1.8t. My 1.8t made 200whp with a chip and full exhaust. My 2.0t made like 245whp with just a chip and downpipe.
> 
> I raced my buddies 1.8t with the exact same mods I had done to my 2.0t and put like 6 cars on him.


Cool story bro 

just because your "chipped" 1.8t was weak doesnt mean mine was. i've posted dyno #s when i was stg 1+ uni, stock SMIC, stock TIP, 225whp and 276wtq on a mustang dyno. later i got the fmic, forge tip, billet dv, uni stg 2. i didn't dyno it again before i went BT tho so i dont have those #'s. im sure it was over 240whp with the additional mods. also i know how to drive, if ur buddy got pulled by 6 cars his driving is :bs::wave: have a nice day


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

aaannndddd, pissing contest..goopcorn:


----------



## babarber (Nov 3, 2008)

The benefit of the 2.0 is the increased displacement, higher c/ratio 6 speed tranny and direct injection. Idc about the power difference because something as simple as a k04 or f4l can easily over compensate but the mkv is also heavier and imo uglier but dont get me wrong both are amazing cars that I would be proud to drive


----------



## Vegeta Gti (Feb 13, 2003)

MKVI is much better looking and the TSi is a superior motor in many ways to the fsi and 1.8t.


eitherway...not most of anything can keep up with my 20v. but i have many advantages.


----------



## Twopnt016v (Jul 5, 2009)

Vegeta Gti said:


> eitherway...not most of anything can keep up with my 20v. but i have many advantages.


:thumbup:HAHA...i have that same problem, when I take the 2.0 16vT rabbit out with play with who ever wants to fall victim:laugh:


----------



## groundupjetta (Feb 1, 2010)

I would go with the mkv

I own a 1.8t and I like it a lot but if I was shopping for a car I would never choose a 2002 over a 2006

You would have to put over a grand on the mkIV just to get at the same level of power as the mkv with just a chip, and still would be driving a older car

I would get the mkv, chip it then add more performance parts as the budget allow. Specially if you are thinking on keeping the stock turbo you will have a lot more potential with the 2.0t:thumbup::beer:


----------



## chc-rado (Nov 20, 2008)

2.Ot(fsi) has issues with cam follower,oil consumption from breather valve,possible pistons rings,valve stem seals, high pressure pump or sensor or even fuel pump. Then the intake valves carbon up at higher mileage, it has better and quicker engine management. Cat converter flange breaking, thermostat pita removal too. But timing belt easier to than 1.8t. 

1.8t transverse really has bad crankcase breather unit, crappy plastic parts(coolant flange,water pump) in some cases, carbon build up on the valves from poor gas. Its a lot easier to work on. It's just has crappy(expensive) tensioner,roller setup. Sometime cam adjuster rail fails(plastic) crappy plastic check valves. I'm really sure 1.8t will cheaper to maintain with aftermarket performance parts than 2.Ot fsi engine. 

Some early tsi engines has valve train issues,nice engine, injectors failure and fuel pump module and pump failures too, timing chain is more time. Consuming than vr6 timing chain. 

I like the idea of 2.0 displacement on 1.8t setup and going with INA timing belt setup(mechanical) non hydraulic. If going 1.8t, get the Gli or gti version with 6-speed transmission. If going with 2.0t, just make sure it was taken care of, stay away from dsg transmission. 

What ever you pick, just has some funds for repairs and good technician on hand. Go for the 6-speed transmission in either form if your going for power. :beer:


----------



## Big_Tom (Aug 19, 2007)

all jokes aside, the 1.8t nev3r loses! muahahaha


----------



## champlemmy (Nov 1, 2011)

ye this is a really tough decision for me , cant make up my mind!,, I do have some time before I make the vehicle purchase so I can really think about it. In a way it does seem kind of foolish to get a 1.8t, sure you can get it for 3k less and with that money you can go stage 2 easily but whats the point when you can get a 2.0t with just a stage 1 chip and probably be getting the same numbers?


----------



## volks8 (Aug 28, 2008)

my buddy has a mk5 gti and has all fueling mods from apr and apr flash. 3in tbe. ar1. i have a 1.8t. UM flash bb exhaust ar1 neuspeed cai. 16v 2.0t aint walking nothing! walks??? haha come on guy.


----------



## v8 killer (Jun 12, 2011)

if your going for looks its def the mk4 if your going for speed id get the mk5.... if you want both i would get the mk4 they might not be the fastest but imo they are the best looking and you can make any car fast with the right mods


----------



## stainlee84 (1 mo ago)

MKIII_96 said:


> the 2.0t wil probably be faster, but not by much because it has to haul that fat jetta around. and the problem with the 2.0t is the intake valves will eventually be covered in carbon because of the direct injection, but you probably dont have to worry about that until 100k miles, and since you want the 06 model, it probably has the cam driven fuel pump where the follower wears out, but thats covered until 130k by vw.
> 
> IMO i think the 1.8t has less problems and is probably more reliable if maintained correctly. the 2.0t has more potential for high horsepower because of the bigger displacement and a better flowing head.


hi, my names jessy . i have a 2015 jetta tsi 1.8t . i wondering if a catless downpipe from a 2.0 (mk6 jetta) fit my (mk6 1.8t)? i know some parts do fit , but trying to get a little better input first 
thank you for your time an sorry i know these will be some basic ?? for you guys .


----------



## vdubguy97 (Sep 13, 2003)

@stainlee84 You are in the wrong 1.8t forum this is for the 1.8t 20v engines that were in the late 90’s to early 2000’s


----------



## stainlee84 (1 mo ago)

oh sorry didnt know


----------



## Vaettr13 (2 mo ago)

stainlee84 said:


> oh sorry didnt know


Reading the forum header in the technical forums list goes a long way, as well as just looking to see the description underneath each forum title.


----------

