# Are 24v VR6's really that much better?



## VW2CRY4 (Dec 20, 2007)

Really... Are the 24v honestly that much better, my friend has a stock 24. i have a slittly modded 12v and i toast him. i think the only thing the 12 more valves adds are weight and problems.. Any professional answers?? lol


----------



## DuB_MaNG (Apr 26, 2007)

i dont think so...
i too ripped my buddies 24v gti with just my intake,exhaust, flywheel


----------



## sc_rufctr (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: (DuB_MaNG)*

12v are robust and strong. Simple and easier to get additional HP out of.
But having said that 24v are more efficient in theory and would also respond well to tuning.
The head design is similar with the additional 12 valves the biggest difference.


----------



## dossantos25 (Mar 18, 2005)

*Re: (sc_rufctr)*

i wouldn't say the head design is too much similar, don't forget the 24v's have the spark plugs in the middle.


----------



## LISTO14 (Dec 20, 2007)

*Re: (dossantos25)*

technically the 24v has a higher volumetric efficiency then the 12v. 
the heads are by no means the same design.. the 12v head is a flat top with the combustion chamber in the pistons (deisel). the 24v has a combustion chamber in the head, and also there is a cam individually set for intake and exhaust where the 12v they are on the same lobe set. 12 more valves = more CFM.
BDF (24v) 200hp
aaa/afp (12v) 174
the head redsign alone adds 25hp to the 2.8 block.
i still dont like the port design of the BDF but it is more effeciant then the 12v.
If you are working them you have to take into account weight and driver also.




_Modified by LISTO14 at 8:12 PM 3/6/2008_


----------



## LISTO14 (Dec 20, 2007)

*Re: (LISTO14)*









they also use staggered injector placement to compensate for un equel port lengths.


----------



## heiney9 (Aug 9, 2006)

12V have a sexier, throatier sound. The change over bearing is a weak point in the 24V. I think the added weight of the MKIV evens out the extra 25 or so ponies extra it makes over the 12V.
All in all I'd take a 24V in a MKIII chassis. The MKIV Golf isn't too bad looking but I still prefer the MKIII Golf.
Both engines were/are a marvel of engineering for their time.


----------



## vdubinjj (Oct 14, 2006)

*Re: (heiney9)*

i had a 96 jetta glx exhaust,chip,intake, now i have a 03 gli 24v and i think the 24v stock is way faster the 6 speed rocks!!!


----------



## cgeromi (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: (LISTO14)*

Love the pictures of the 2 diff heads! very cooL! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Veedub_junky (Aug 13, 2005)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (VW2CRY4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW2CRY4* »_Really... Are the 24v honestly that much better, my friend has a stock 24. i have a slittly modded 12v and i toast him. i think the only thing the 12 more valves adds are weight and problems.. Any professional answers?? lol

The biggest difference (IMHO) between the 12v and 24v mk4's is the transmission, not the engine. I think the big difference you are seeing when you "toast" your friend is the difference in gear boxes. The 5sp gears are longer, so you can stay in them longer than your friend in his 6sp. I've gone back and forth as to to which is "better" as I have the 24v and my wife has a 12v - I've concluded that they have different enough characteristics that it's not an apples to apples comparison. 
VW made a number of small improvements (besides the obvious) to take care of some of the maintenance and wear issues on the 12v motor (chains, crack pipe, t-stat housing, etc...). These parts still go out on the 24v, but seem to last longer from what I've seen so far. 
In that respect, I say that yes, the 24v is better, but as a package, I don't think I'd say one is necessarily better than the other


----------



## Eric D (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: (cgeromi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cgeromi* »_Love the pictures of the 2 diff heads! very cooL! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

The pics are of the 24v, no 12v head shown.


----------



## Salsa GTI (Aug 29, 2000)

*Re: (Eric D)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Eric D* »_
The pics are of the 24v, no 12v head shown.

correct








And the only reason you folks with the 12v VR's even come close to the 24v VR is the mk4 is that much heavier....Period.
Engine preformance is in the Head.....more flow more go.
the 24v is head and sholders above the 12v diesel head.
add a turbo to both and see major difference in WHP.
I like the 12v VR..hell I own one.
But the 24 valve is the winner now matter how you look at it.


----------



## Veedub_junky (Aug 13, 2005)

*Re: (Salsa GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Salsa GTI* »_
And the only reason you folks with the 12v VR's even come close to the 24v VR is the mk4 is that much heavier....Period.


The OP was talking about a mk4 12v vs a mk4 24v, so that arguement doesn't work. In the case of a mk3, that is somewhat true, but again, the gear ratios also come into play.


----------



## Salsa GTI (Aug 29, 2000)

*Re: (Veedub_junky)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Veedub_junky* »_
The OP was talking about a mk4 12v vs a mk4 24v, so that arguement doesn't work. In the case of a mk3, that is somewhat true, but again, the gear ratios also come into play.

as does the extra 25 hp


----------



## Slimjimmn (Apr 8, 2006)

*Re: (Salsa GTI)*

I hate those offset injectors on the 24v.... removing them blows...Especially on the 3.6. 
Being a 6spd you can keep the engine in its powerband when revving it. I would have to think that would help on accelleration compared to a 5spd.


----------



## vrisk (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (Slimjimmn)*

first off the mk4 golf is only 88 pounds heavyer than the mk3 golf http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif and the mk4 12v has more hp and tq than the mk3 12v so therefor mk4vr>mk3vr.. only thing the mk3 vr has on the mk4 is the sexy sound to come from the metal mani. but than agian thats its weakness were the mk4 plastic mani makes more power.


----------



## CorradoSLC (Jan 20, 2000)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (VW2CRY4)*

I also have both. My thoughts:
- o2m > o2a; in ratios and feel
- the 24v is quiet and tame (stock) compared to the 12v
- stock for stock, the 24v is better, but the 12v can be modded easily and cheaply; there are no $300 cams for the 24v or $2000 (used) s/c kits
- i hate all DBW - old school cable is where it's at


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (sc_rufctr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sc_rufctr* »_12v are robust and strong. Simple and easier to get additional HP out of.
But having said that 24v are more efficient in theory and would also respond well to tuning.
The head design is similar with the additional 12 valves the biggest difference.









Nothing you said makes sence except your second remark, drink bleach


----------



## Salsa GTI (Aug 29, 2000)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RipCity Euros* »_
Nothing you said makes sence except your second remark, drink bleach
 i second that


----------



## jesiman (Feb 2, 2003)

*Re: (Salsa GTI)*

I believe that the larger diameter tires lenthens your time in gear and in effect will make the 3.9 r&p in the mk4 very close to the 3.6/3.3 in mk3s and corrados


----------



## sc_rufctr (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*

Why would I drink Bleach? I would prefer Scotch!!!


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (jesiman)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jesiman* »_I believe that the larger diameter tires lenthens your time in gear and in effect will make the 3.9 r&p in the mk4 very close to the 3.6/3.3 in mk3s and corrados

They're not that much bigger.


----------



## jesiman (Feb 2, 2003)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

aaaahhh.... i put the numbers in a gear/mph calculator and its very close. thats with a 3.6 rado tranny vs 3.9 mk4 on stock tires.


----------



## Canadian2.0L8v (Sep 17, 2007)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (VW2CRY4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VW2CRY4* »_aaa/afp (12v) 174

is there any difference between the 12v AAA and the 12v AFP?
is the 24v really hard to swap into a mk3 golf? i mean, i have a 2.slow and i'm looking for some serious n/a power. the 24v would definatly be the engine of choice, no?
(but the 12v looks so much nicer!)
...and sounds better too...


----------



## magman (Jun 22, 2001)

I have one of each, a 98 12Vv and a 2002 24Vv.
Given the choice I would pick the 24 every time.


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (magman)*

The 24v longblock reportedly weighs less too.


----------



## eurotekms (Feb 10, 2002)

*Re: (LISTO14)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LISTO14* »_ technically the 24v has a higher volumetric efficiency then the 12v. 
_Modified by LISTO14 at 8:12 PM 3/6/2008_

... and that my friends, is what's important


----------



## Massboykie (Aug 15, 2006)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (VW2CRY4)*

I had a 24V GLI with a Magnaflow catback, GIAC, CAI and ABD bigbore... Traded it with a heavy hart... The twin turbo fixed that though... lol
The second car is now a 12V VR. With a Chip 2.5" exhaust and CAI, and I have to say my GLI would spank this VR for sure. My GLI put 175 ponies on ground, don't know what the 12v with this setup typically puts down.
My 2c....








Cheers
Massboykie


----------



## G60ING (Jun 27, 2000)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RipCity Euros* »_The 24v longblock reportedly weighs less too.

Bullllllsheeeet.
Sorry but I have a brand new 12V Long block and a brand new 24V Long block and I'd say the 24V wieghs 50-75lb more then the 12V. The friend helping me agreed and he's played with a a number of 12Vs.


----------



## G60ING (Jun 27, 2000)

*Re: (G60ING)*

some coparison pictures:
































If additional comparison pics are desired please let me know asap as one will be gone within a few hours.
Please note that these are different hieght platforms so they look like one is taller when they are the same or very close


_Modified by G60ING at 4:52 PM 8-20-2008_


----------



## crannky (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (Massboykie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Massboykie* »_I had a 24V GLI with a Magnaflow catback, GIAC, CAI and ABD bigbore... Traded it with a heavy hart... The twin turbo fixed that though... lol
The second car is now a 12V VR. With a Chip 2.5" exhaust and CAI, and I have to say my GLI would spank this VR for sure. My GLI put 175 ponies on ground, don't know what the 12v with this setup typically puts down.
My 2c....








Cheers
Massboykie

You can't go by seat of the pants. 12 valves with metal manifolds don't necessarilly feel as strong as the cars with the variable intakes. Doesn't mean they aren't as quick or quicker. I remember driving my friends 24 valve the first time. It felt so much more powerful everywhere and faster than my MKIII to boot. It wasn't, but the feel of the motors can't be compared. There is a lot more to take into account...
It's like comparing a boosted car to all motor. A turbo will almost always feel like it's a faster car even if it isn't.
-T-
I should add, though, that the 24 valve is a stronger motor application for application. IE, if a cammed 24 was in a MKIII vs a cammed 12 valve, both with the same gearbox it's obvious the 24 valve would be the more powerful, quicker car.

_Modified by crannky at 10:18 AM 3-22-2008_


_Modified by crannky at 10:41 AM 3-22-2008_


----------



## LISTO14 (Dec 20, 2007)

*Re: (G60ING)*


_Quote, originally posted by *G60ING* »_some coparison pictures:
































If additional comparison pics are desired please let me know asap as one will be gone within a few hours.
Please note that these are different hieght platforms so they look like one is taller when they are the same or very close

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (LISTO14)*

The 24V makes some more power but I can't say I'm real impressed with the times these cars get at the track. At least allmotor and supercharged. They don't seem to be any faster than the 12valves. There are alot more 12 valves out there and they had a 10 yr. head start so that's some of it I'm sure.


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_The 24V makes some more power but I can't say I'm real impressed with the times these cars get at the track. At least allmotor and supercharged. They don't seem to be any faster than the 12valves. There are alot more 12 valves out there and they had a 10 yr. head start so that's some of it I'm sure. 

I dont think the 24v's gearing is set up for the track. A 5 speed is much more suitable...


----------



## slc92 (Feb 9, 2005)

*Re: (RipCity Euros)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RipCity Euros* »_
I dont think the 24v's gearing is set up for the track. A 5 speed is much more suitable...

Perhaps. A guy on here has a VF stage 2 Supercharged 24valve. After quite a few passes I think he's running a 13.7. The car dyno'd 280whp. Seems awful slow to me for that power. He traps low too so maybe some of it is the gearing.


----------



## RipCity Euros (Sep 23, 2007)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
Perhaps. A guy on here has a VF stage 2 Supercharged 24valve. After quite a few passes I think he's running a 13.7. The car dyno'd 280whp. Seems awful slow to me for that power. He traps low too so maybe some of it is the gearing.

Which is why im sticking with the 5 speed. One guy in the 24v forum just switched to the 5 speed gearbox aswell...


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_The 24V makes some more power but I can't say I'm real impressed with the times these cars get at the track. 

It's mostly the people that own them







Palumbo's stock R motor'd MK3 with cams, big tb, and standalone went 12.0 @115, that's nothing to sneeze at. I'd bet that if that was a regular 2.8 it'd still have gone 12.50s easy.


----------



## crannky (Jun 24, 2006)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
Perhaps. A guy on here has a VF stage 2 Supercharged 24valve. After quite a few passes I think he's running a 13.7. The car dyno'd 280whp. Seems awful slow to me for that power. He traps low too so maybe some of it is the gearing.

My friend has GLI that my MKIII would somehow routinely work. Started having close runs when he installed a VF kit.
It's definitely a combination of gearing, weight and mods chosen.

-T-


----------



## Massboykie (Aug 15, 2006)

*Re: (G60ING)*

OK, I'm going to ask....
Why do you have two motors sitting on pallets?








Cheers
Massboykie


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (Massboykie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Massboykie* »_
Why do you have two motors sitting on pallets?










You want them right on the ground? 
Looks like someone else got in on the VW rebuild fire sale though. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## 619 (Mar 29, 2004)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (VW2CRY4)*

Just to clear up some stuff here, 24v dyno 175whp/wtq stock, 190+ whp/wtq with i-c-e. best time was joem29 14.2 @ 97 full weight + a 2 12's and amps in the trunk. all on stock tires and suspension. mods were cai, chip, and 2.5 catback. his car wasnt a freak of anything he dyno'd 191whp he just is good driver and most 24v'rs dont drag or arent n/a. show me a 12v run those time or make those number with the same set up



_Modified by 619 at 3:46 PM 5/7/2008_


----------



## excreations (Jul 31, 2007)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (619)*

Sorry for bringing this back from the dead, but the question I have is this.
so the 24v with a 6 speed is said to be no good, but with the the 5 speed trans would you guys all agree it would run better than the 12v?


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (excreations)*

The 6sp gear ratios are actually pretty good, it'd be like having a 4.24 R&P in a stock 5sp trans. Get some tire under the car and it'll move.


----------



## kombi (Jan 24, 2003)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (619)*

I have a friend that last year dyno his 97 glx at 181 hp to the wheels with nothing but a Suitcase delete and a intake...
However i agree the overall design of the 24v motor is better.. untill you start modifyin the motors.. i prefer the 12v.. i feel like it rev's better and faster.. and pulls harder.. Why.. hell if i know..


----------



## outamyway (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (kombi)*

I have a 1.8T tiptronic MK4 Jetta, stock that rolls up my friends 12V MK4 Jetta 5 speed stock. 
My 24V Mk4 GTI will make my 1.8T look silly.


----------



## inverno_06 (Nov 21, 2006)

*Re: Are 24v VR6's really that much better? (outamyway)*

i think its all a matter of preference really, mk3s look better but mk4s have the 24v, put them together and you have the best car imo, as far as the trannies those six speeds are pretty much bulletproof, ive only seen one rebuild at my work, also ive walked a couple 24vs too with just light mods so its really not worth it to me to get the heavier car http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_
I'd bet that if that was a regular 2.8 it'd still have gone 12.50s easy.

Bone stock 2.8 24v long block/intake manifold, Mustang TB, DTA, custom dp 3" exhaust went [email protected] in a Mk2. Good job, Chris A.
Time to go swapping kids.


----------



## dragonfli_x (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*

stop it guys, you're making me want to do a whole motor/tranny swap to pop my turbo onto...








12v 02m vrt mk4


----------



## Oh1GeeTeeEye (Aug 19, 2008)

I just got my '01 VR6 and two days after that found out there is a difference in hp and ltrs. This kinda bummed me out cause of course we all want the most hp out of our cars. personally regardless of logestics, more hp is always better IMO. I'm sellin my '01 for a '02+


----------



## mk4vrjtta (Feb 3, 2007)

*Re: (Oh1GeeTeeEye)*

^^^^well thats silly


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Bone stock 2.8 24v long block/intake manifold, Mustang TB, DTA, custom dp 3" exhaust went [email protected] in a Mk2. Good job, Chris A.
Time to go swapping kids.









Happen to know the weight on that car? I just got a new shell I'm going to make lighter then my current 2300.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (skydaman)*

2370 with driver from what I remember. For reference in the same prep my MK3 is 2410.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_2370 with driver from what I remember. For reference in the same prep my MK3 is 2410.

Good stuff, I got another MKIII shell I'm trying to get down close to 2000-2100 so I can be at 2300 with me and fuel instead of my current 2500 with me and a half tank. A little more power, tires, and gears and I should be cooking. 
To stay on topic... I have yet to have a 24V keep up with me.


----------



## shortshiften (Mar 29, 2005)

mk4 are fat pigs 
put a 24v in a mk3 and it will out preform the 12v every time.
from the change over intake valve to better flowing head to true dual cam set up. the 24v is deff superior. but who doesnt love a good old 12v.
remember that the 12v came out a long time ago. the 24v is just an improved design. im sure in a couple years we will have some crazy new set up to compare the 24v to.
ive herd rumors of a 4.0L fsi vr6 and really wish that they would make a diesel vr!


----------



## billyVR6 (May 8, 2000)

*Re: (shortshiften)*

I am impressed with what killacoupe got out of the stock 2.8L 24v long block with the DTA.
It's in it's infant stages, plenty of room to move forward. 217whp is where many 12v's would call it quits, if they even get there. Not knocking a 12v, if it's in your car it's a tough call and will really depend on what you are looking to achieve. Naturally aspirated that is...


_Modified by billyVR6 at 8:20 PM 8-29-2008_


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (billyVR6)*

Luckily I'm unmotivated when it comes to swaps.


----------



## skydaman (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: (need_a_VR6)*


_Quote, originally posted by *need_a_VR6* »_Luckily I'm unmotivated when it comes to swaps.

Haha that and it boots it into another much faster class.


----------



## need_a_VR6 (May 19, 1999)

*Re: (skydaman)*

Way faster!


----------



## 8project4 (Jul 23, 2006)

*Re: (shortshiften)*

ture about the 24v being the imporved 12v design. it just like the 4 cylinder timeline. 8 valve, 16 valve, 20 valve. vr timeline 12v, 24v, 30v(i'm not talking about the audi motor). only time will tell.


----------



## skippyunit (Jul 14, 2008)

*Re: (Salsa GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Salsa GTI* »_
correct








And the only reason you folks with the 12v VR's even come close to the 24v VR is the mk4 is that much heavier....Period.
Engine preformance is in the Head.....more flow more go.
the 24v is head and sholders above the 12v diesel head.
add a turbo to both and see major difference in WHP.
I like the 12v VR..hell I own one.
But the 24 valve is the winner now matter how you look at it.

I have a mkIIII 12V and I smoke my friends mkIIII 24v


----------



## germanrox (Mar 30, 2001)

*Re: (slc92)*


_Quote, originally posted by *slc92* »_
Perhaps. A guy on here has a VF stage 2 Supercharged 24valve. After quite a few passes I think he's running a 13.7. The car dyno'd 280whp. Seems awful slow to me for that power. He traps low too so maybe some of it is the gearing.

I bet it's all in his 60' time.


----------

